UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7348

NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1822-3-20BC)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Nathaniel C. Riley, II, appeals 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 district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Riley’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Riley v. South Carolina, No. CA-99-1822-3-20BC (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 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 order is marked as “filed” on September 3, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 7, 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, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).