UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 99-6421



LEONARD JUAN HAWKINS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-229-AM)


Submitted:   August 19, 1999                 Decided:   August 25, 1999


Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Keller Leonard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; William Ed-
ward Findler, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark L. Earley,
Attorney General, Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Leonard Juan Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court.   See Hawkins v. Virginia, No.

CA-99-229-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 1999).*      We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

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
March 4, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 15, 1999. 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