UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 99-6042



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-95-503, CA-98-1817-AM)


Submitted:   March 11, 1999                 Decided:   March 18, 1999


Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Edghill Leo Francis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   See United States v. Francis, Nos. CR-95-

503; CA-98-1817-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 24, 1998).*     We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
December 23, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 24, 1998.      Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the order was 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).


                                  2