Court Opinion

ID: 1001403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:54:59.048974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:00.633091
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-7700

JOHNNIE FRIMPONG-MANSO,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CR-99-62, CA-99-1650-AM)

Submitted: March 28, 2000

Decided: April 18, 2000

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Johnnie Frimpong-Manso, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew James
McKenna, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alex-
andria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Frimpong-Manso seeks to appeal the district court's order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999). In his § 2255 motion, Frimpong-Manso asserted that counsel
provided ineffective assistance by failing to (1) timely object to a six-
point enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2L2.1(b)(2)(B) (1998), and (2) file a notice of appeal after the court
overruled the objection to the six-point enhancement. In rejecting
Frimpong-Manso's second claim, the district court did not have the
benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120
S. Ct. 1029 (2000). We therefore grant a certificate of appealability,
vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings
in light of Flores-Ortega. We express no opinion on the merits of
Frimpong-Manso's motion. Finally, 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