Case Name: Dave Andrae TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Attorney's Office; Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau Of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explosives; Robert E. Trono, A.U.S.A.; John Healy, A.T.F.B. Special Agent; Richard Philpott, D.E.A. Special Agent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 399 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 10-6491
Parties: Dave Andrae TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Attorney’s Office; Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau Of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explo sives; Robert E. Trono, A.U.S.A.; John Healy, A.T.F.B. Special Agent; Richard Philpott, D.E.A. Special Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
Dave Andrae TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Attorney’s Office; Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau Of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explo sives; Robert E. Trono, A.U.S.A.; John Healy, A.T.F.B. Special Agent; Richard Philpott, D.E.A. Special Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6491.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 6, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 29, 2010.
Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant pro se.
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dave Andrae Taylor, a federal prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), seeking damages on the ground that Defendants failed to advise him prior to his conviction of drug and firearms offenses of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice, concluding that Taylor's action was barred by the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and conclude that pursuant to Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006), the action was not barred by the holding in Heck. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order dismissing Taylor's action without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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.