UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7149



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RAMONA MARIA DIFAZIO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-94-2)


Submitted:   November 4, 1999          Decided:     November 10, 1999


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ramona Maria DiFazio, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Stephen
Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ramona Maria DiFazio seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.    See United States v. DiFazio, No. CR-94-2

(E.D. Va. Aug. 16, 1999).*   We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.




                                                          DISMISSED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
August 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 16, 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