Court Opinion

ID: 995917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:43:49.846925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:02.129727
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-6313

MICHAEL JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-93-125, CA-96-1029)

Submitted: July 28, 1998

Decided: August 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing with preju-
dice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998), as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became
final in May 1995, and he filed his federal habeas motion in Decem-
ber 1996. Because Appellant's conviction became final prior to the
implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had until
April 23, 1997 in which to file his habeas motion. See Brown v.
Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Thus, Appellant's motion was not time
barred. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this
issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further pro-
ceedings. 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