Court Opinion

ID: 1000284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:37:53.282328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:59.648021
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                     No. 97-7076
JAMES A. BUTLER, a/k/a Willie
James Butler, a/k/a John Thomas,
a/k/a Grady,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                     No. 97-7235
JAMES A. BUTLER, a/k/a Willie
James Butler, a/k/a John Thomas,
a/k/a Grady,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                     No. 97-7236
JAMES A. BUTLER, a/k/a Willie
James Butler, a/k/a John Thomas,
a/k/a Grady,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-91-44)
Submitted: October 29, 1999

Decided: November 15, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Crawford Vick, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James A. Butler appeals the district court's order denying his
request for an extension of time in which to file his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 1999), motion and ordering the district court
clerk not to file the 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. Butler's motion for
post-conviction relief was received in the district court on April 29,
1997. The district court ordered the district court clerk not to file the
motion because it concluded that Butler had one year from July 1993,
when his conviction became final, in which to file under the newly
amended 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Butler
timely appealed the order.

                     2
While the case was pending on appeal, this court decided Brown
v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). Under Brown, Butler had
until April 23, 1997, to file his federal habeas motion. See id. at 375-
76. We remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose
of determining the date on which Butler delivered the motion to
prison officials for forwarding to the court and was therefore consid-
ered filed under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). See
United States v. Butler, No. 97-7076(L), slip op. at 3 (4th Cir. Oct.
19, 1998) (per curiam). On remand, the district court found that Butler
delivered the motion to prison officials prior to April 23, 1997.
Accordingly, Butler's motion was timely filed. See Brown, 150 F.3d
at 376.

The district court did not consider the merits of Butler's § 2255
motion when it denied the motion for an extension of time in which
to file and ordered the district court clerk not to file the motion as
time-barred. On remand, the court had jurisdiction only to determine
the date on which Butler filed the motion. Accordingly, we grant a
certificate of appealability. The court's order directing the clerk not
to file the motion is vacated and remanded with instructions to review
the merits of the timely petition.

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

                    3