UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHANGHAI MONTRAL FOODSTUFF
COMPANY, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

XINHUA WANG, a/k/a William Wang,
Defendant-Appellant,                                   No. 98-1152

and

XIAOYIN FAN, a/k/a Shelly Fan;
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRADE
CORPORATION, d/b/a ITTC,
Defendants.

SHANGHAI MONTRAL FOODSTUFF
COMPANY, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

XINHUA WANG, a/k/a William Wang,
Defendant-Appellee,                                    No. 98-1198

and

XIAOYIN FAN, a/k/a Shelly Fan;
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRADE
CORPORATION, d/b/a ITTC,
Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-96-1794-A)
Submitted: November 9, 1999

Decided: December 20, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Xinhua Wang, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Alexander Lehman, Alex-
andria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Xinhua "William" Wang appeals the district court's
judgment after a civil jury trial finding against him and other defen-
dants, and the district court's order denying his motion for judgment
as a matter of law after the trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The
record does not contain a transcript of the trial. The burden of includ-
ing in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings
material to the issues raised on appeal is imposed upon Appellant
Wang on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Loc. R. 10(c).
Despite being advised by this court that a transcript of the trial was
necessary for a full consideration of his appeal and being directed to
provide a transcript or apply for in forma pauperis status so that the
court could consider his eligibility for a free transcript under 28
U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994), Wang has failed to do either. By failing to

                    2
produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at
government expense, Wang has waived review of the issues on appeal
that depend upon the transcript to show error.1 See Powell v. Estelle,

, 26 (5th Cir. 1992); Keller v. Prince George's Co., 

, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record
before us, we affirm the district court's order. See Shanghai Montral
v. Wang, No. CA-96-1794-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 25 & Dec. 30, 1997).2

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process. We also deny Wang's
motion to "examine practice of SMF's attorney."

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
1 The limited transcripts provided by Wang provide an insufficient
basis for this court to review the issues he raises on appeal.
2 Although the district court's orders are marked as "filed" on August
21 & December 23, 1997, respectively, the district court's records show
that they were entered on the docket sheet on August 25 & December 30,
1997. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket
sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See
Wilson v. Murray, 

, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                    3