UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE WILSON, III, a/k/a Charles L. Gaston,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-6535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE WILSON, III, a/k/a Charles L. Gaston,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-461-A)

Submitted: January 28, 2000 Decided: February 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

No. 99-7099 affirmed and No. 98-6535 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Wilson, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Thomas Martin, Gary DiBianco, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

In No. 99-7099, George Wilson appeals the district court order

denying his motions seeking relief under Rule 35(a)(2) of the Fed-

eral Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules 52 and 59 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

In No. 98-6535, this Court remanded to the district court the

claim that Wilson received ineffective assistance of counsel. We

instructed the district court to make a factual finding regarding

how much actual PCP was in the 14.1 kilogram mixture attributed to

Wilson for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Wilson,

(4th Cir. Mar. 22, 1999) (Nos. 98-6535, 98-7258) (un-

published). The district court has made the appropriate factual

finding and concluded that Wilson was not prejudiced by counsel’s

conduct. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in No.

98-6535 on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Wilson, No. CR-93-461-A (E.D. Va. June 3, 1999).*

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on June 2, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 3, 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,

(4th Cir. 1986).

3 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.

No. 99-7099 - AFFIRMED

No. 98-6535 - DISMISSED

4