Court Opinion

ID: 995783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:42:11.576391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:00.827836
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-6822

TERRANCE ANDRE 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-93-88, CA-97-390-2)

Submitted: July 21, 1998

Decided: August 7, 1998

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terrance Andre Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 on October 14, 1993. On
April 16, 1997, Appellant filed a § 2255 motion. The district court
denied relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year
limitation period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). 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 vacate the district court's order and
remand this case for consideration on the merits. We grant a certifi-
cate of appealability on this issue but 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