UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT BARNWELL CLARKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-10-P, CA-97-126-5-P)

Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: October 22, 1999

Before WIDENER, ERVIN,* and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Barnwell Clarkson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Emile Karam, Alan Hechtkopf, Robert Esten Lindsay, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

* Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to

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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Robert B. Clarkson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under

(West Supp. 1999)

and denying his motion for a new trial filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.

59. 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. Clarkson, Nos. CR-94-10-P;

CA-97-126-5-P (W.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 1998; Mar. 23, 1999).* We dis-

pense 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

* Although the district court’s orders are marked “filed” on October 8, 1998 and March 19, 1999 respectively, the court’s record shows that the orders were entered on the docket sheet on October 14, 1998 and March 23, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s orders. Wilson v. Murray,

(4th Cir. 1986).

2