Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0505-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel S. McCRAE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-7360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 2, 2004.
    Decided: July 22, 2004.
    Emmanuel S. McCrae, Appellant pro se.
    Felice McConnell Corpening, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel S. McCrae appeals from the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether remand is appropriate to determine when a duly diligent person would have discovered that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal after being asked to do so See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 116(4) (“A 1-year period of limitation shall ... run from the latest of ... the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”). The Government has responded, and McCrae has replied. See 4th Cir. R. 22(a)(1)(B).

Because the district court did not consider the timeliness of McCrae’s § 2255 motion pursuant to § 2255 H 6(4) and because the record does not disclose when McCrae could have discovered with due diligence that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to determine whether the § 2255 motion is timely under § 2255 H 6(4). We express no opinion on the outcome of this determination. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED 
      
       We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal in which McCrae challenged the district court's finding that his § 2255 motion was untimely under § 2255 116(1).