Court Opinion

ID: 995791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:42:16.587762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:00.875714
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-6752

DAVID BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-91-165, CA-97-308-3)

Submitted: July 21, 1998

Decided: August 7, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David Baker, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 seeks to appeal 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 1995. On April 11,
1997, Appellant filed his § 2255 motion. The district court denied
relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year limita-
tion 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,
in which to file a timely motion. Accordingly, because Appellant filed
his § 2255 motion before April 23, 1997, we grant a certificate of
appealability, 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