Case Name: Johnny MULL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-16
Citations: 32 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 01-7953
Parties: Johnny MULL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
Johnny MULL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-7953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 29, 2002.
Decided April 16, 2002.
Johnny Mull, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Mull seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). The district court determined sua sponte that Mull's petition was untimely and dismissed the petition without affording Mull notice or an opportunity to respond. Because it is not indisputably clear from the face of Mull's § 2254 petition that his petition is untimely, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's order, and remand for the court to provide Mull with the appropriate notice. See Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir.2002). We deny Mull's mo tion for appointed counsel and his motion for injunctive relief. We express no opinion as to either the merits of Mull's petition or whether his filing was untimely. 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 note the district court issued its order before our opinion in Hill issued.