UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7241



BEVERLY RICARDO MANGUM,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD ANGELONE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-98-541)


Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 22, 1999


Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Beverly Ricardo Mangum, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Beverly Ricardo Mangum 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 Mangum v. Angelone, No.

CA-98-541 (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 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
August 27, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 28, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date 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