Court Opinion

ID: 996169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:47:09.368057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:02.109380
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                        No. 97-7079
MERRICK RALPH FALESBORK, a/k/a
Merrick, a/k/a Merc,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-91-116-N, CA-97-397-2)

Submitted: August 13, 1998

Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jeffrey S. Shapiro, VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Vir-
ginia; Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his
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). Appellant's conviction became final on Septem-
ber 1, 1993, and he filed his habeas motion on April 21, 1997. Appel-
lant had until April 23, 1997, to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v.
Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Therefore, his 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 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

                     2