Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Louis BARBER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-15
Citations: 39 F. App'x 918
Docket Number: No. 02-6524
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Louis BARBER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 39
Pages: 918–919

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Louis BARBER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2002.
Decided July 15, 2002.
Donald Louis Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Donald Louis Barber seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his petition for a writ of audita querela filed under the All Writs Act, which the district court construed as Barber's first motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), and his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644 (4th Cir.2002), when it recharacterized Barber's filing as his first § 2255 motion. Thus, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's orders, and remand in light of Emmanuel for the district court to provide Barber with notice of its intention to re-characterize his filing and an opportunity for him to respond by proceeding with the recharacterization to a § 2255 motion or by electing to have the district court address the merits of the petition for a writ of audita querela as filed. See id. at 649-50. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatély presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
If Barber chooses this route, we express no opinion on the timeliness of the motion or the claims Barber may seek to raise through amendment. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001); Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir.2002); United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314 (4th Cir.2000).