Court Opinion

ID: 996170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:47:09.927687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:02.110645
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                No. 97-6359
DEVON CLARKE, a/k/a Little Wayne,
a/k/a John Brown,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.
(CR-88-126-N, CA-96-1020-2)

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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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

Devon Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Vincent L. Gambale, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 in 1990. On October 21,
1996, Appellant filed a § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief
on the grounds that Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year
limitation period imposed by § 2255. Pursuant to our recent decision
in Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d #6D6D 6D#, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998
WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), however, Appellant had until
April 23, 1997, in which to file a timely motion. Accordingly,
because Appellant filed his § 2255 motion by April 23, 1997, we
grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's order,
and remand this case for consideration on the merits. We deny Appel-
lant's motion for judicial notice and 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