Court Opinion

ID: 996221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:47:41.024004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:44.300596
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TONY CURTIS KILE,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 98-6555
GEORGE TRENT, Warden; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.
(CA-97-97-1)

Submitted: July 30, 1998

Decided: August 31, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tony Curtis Kile, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Rory
Lee Perry, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST
VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief
on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998). Appellant's conviction became final on September 12, 1995.
On April 23, 1997, Appellant filed a § 2254 petition. The district
court denied relief because Appellant filed his petition outside the
one-year limitation period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2244(d) (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). Pursuant to our recent decision in Brown v.
Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030
(4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which
to file a timely petition. Since Appellant filed his§ 2254 petition on
April 23, 1997, it is therefore timely under Brown. Accordingly, we
vacate the district court's order and remand this case for consideration
on the merits. 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

                    2