UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7679 CURT N. PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-1-K, CA-96-645-K) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 29, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Curt N. Price, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterror- ism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Specifically, we find that Appellant's conviction, on a guilty plea, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), is proper under the "carry" prong of that statute. See Bailey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W.

4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (94-7448, 94-7492). In addition, the record does not support Appellant's claim that he was promised a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion by the Government. We also find that because United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b) (Nov. 1992), did not become effective until after the date of Appel- lant's sentencing, and because the amendment is not retroactive under USSG § 1B1.10, Appellant's claim that he is entitled to a third level of reduction for acceptance of responsibility is without merit. Finally, because none of the issues Appellant raised have merit, we find that Appellant has not demonstrated any attorney error required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984), and therefore cannot meet his burden under Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985), necessary to obtain relief from his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED