Court Opinion

ID: 999515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:27:01.612298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:14.120486
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-6619

MELVIN M. STANFORD, a/k/a Slim,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson E. Legg, District Judge.
(CR-82-351, CA-97-923-L)

Submitted: July 6, 1999

Decided: August 26, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Melvin M. Stanford, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Stanford appeals the district court's order denying as
untimely filed his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999). He claims that his motion was filed within the statutory limita-
tions period, and we agree. Where the prisoner's conviction became
final prior to the enactment date of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the one-year limitations period
provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999), will run from
April 24, 1996, the effective date of the statute. See Brown v.
Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1998). Because Stanford's
motion was executed on March 28, 1997, it was timely filed. Accord-
ingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the order of the
district court, and remand the matter for further proceedings.* We
express no opinion on the merits of Stanford's motion. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
*Indeed, the district court has recognized the error and has reopened
the case. We vacate the district court's dismissal order simply to ensure
that the district court possesses jurisdiction to proceed.

                    2