UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-6889

RICHARD LEANDER SMITH, a/k/a Peter,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-90-71, CA-95-671)

Submitted: February 13, 1997

Decided: March 3, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mark John Rochon, Jr., ROCHON & ROBERTS, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. John Granville Douglass, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Richard L. Smith appeals from the district court's denial of his
motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by Anti-
terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132, 110 Stat. 1217. We dismiss.

Smith contends that his attorney was ineffective for failing to
object, at trial, to the admission of a self-incriminating statement
which Smith alleges was involuntary despite the giving of Miranda
warnings. Our review reveals that Smith's attorney raised this issue
and corresponding arguments in a pre-trial motion to suppress. This
motion was denied by the district court. At trial, Smith's attorney
unsuccessfully renewed his objection prior to the admission of the
statement.

In reviewing for ineffective assistance of counsel the court "must
indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland v.
Washington, 

, 689 (1984). The petitioner bears the bur-
den of overcoming the presumption that the challenged actions might
be considered sound trial strategy. Goodson v. United States, 

, 1072 (4th Cir. 1977). Given that Smith's attorney argued the
issue prior to trial and renewed his objection at trial, we find that
Smith has not met his burden of challenging the soundness of what
appears to be reasonable trial strategy. Accordingly, we deny a certifi-
cate of appealability and dismiss.

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.

DISMISSED

                    2