Court Opinion

ID: 996358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:49:36.545934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:53.756817
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-7055

KEMBA NIAMBI SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.
(CR-93-162, CA-97-411-2)

Submitted: August 27, 1998

Decided: September 15, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George Kendall, Leah Song Richardson, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
& EDUCATIONAL FUND, New York, New York; Gerald Thomas
Zerkin, GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kemba Niambi Smith appeals from a district court order that con-
cluded her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1998). Smith's conviction became final
in 1995, and she filed her habeas motion on April 23, 1997. Because
Smith had until April 23, 1997 to file her § 2255 motion, see Brown
v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208), her motion was not time barred. For these
reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the
district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. We dis-
pense 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