UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-6068



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TERRY FENNER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-95-
95-MJG, CA-99-2419-MJG)


Submitted:   June 15, 2000                 Decided:   June 22, 2000


Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terry Fenner, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Terry Fenner seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

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 dis-

trict court.   See United States v. Fenner, Nos. CR-95-95-MJG; CA-

99-2419-MJG (D. Md. Nov. 30, 1999).*   We deny Fenner’s motion for

appointment of counsel. 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
November 29, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 30, 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