UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 99-6664



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHRIS HARPER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-96-183, CA-99-93-3-V)


Submitted:   July 22, 1999                 Decided:    July 28, 1999


Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chris Harper, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Chris Harper seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district 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 United States v. Harper, Nos. CR-96-183; CA-

99-93-3-V (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 1999*).             We dispense with oral argu-

ment       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
April 23, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 27, 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