Court Opinion

ID: 995983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:44:46.722759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:01.500174
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 97-6710
FENCEL O'HARA MARTIN, a/k/a
Festus,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-88-76-N, CA-97-410-2)

Submitted: July 30, 1998

Decided: August 19, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Edward Frank, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles Dee
Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Nor-
folk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
Appellant's conviction became final in 1990. On April 23, 1997,
Appellant filed his § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief
because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year limitation
period imposed by § 2255. 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 to file a
timely motion. Appellant's § 2255 motion was therefore timely.
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,
vacate the district court's order, and remand this case for consider-
ation 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