Court Opinion

ID: 995986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:44:48.348236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:46.215442
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-6311

KEVIN JEROME FUELL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-93-138-R, CA-96-1043-R)

Submitted: July 30, 1998

Decided: August 19, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph Samuel Massie, III, MORRISSEY, HERSHNER & JACOBS,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Vir-
ginia; David S. Kris, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS-
TICE, Washington, D.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 1994. On December
27, 1996, Appellant filed a § 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 further proceedings. 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