Court Opinion

ID: 996077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:45:58.097107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:01.789747
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-6705

KEITH ERIC LONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-6706

KEITH ERIC LONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge;
William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-38, CA-97-90-1, CR-94-10081, CA-97-81-1)

Submitted: August 4, 1998

Decided: August 25, 1998

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Keith Eric Long, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)
was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became final on April 25,
1995, and he filed his habeas motion on April 23, 1997. Appellant
had until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v.
Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Therefore, his motion was not time barred.
For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,
vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                     2