Court Opinion

ID: 996611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:53:33.442494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:03.510158
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND E. FOWLER,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 98-6700

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CA-97-356-3)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Raymond E. Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Raymond E. Fowler appeals from a district court order that con-
cluded his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28
U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1) (West Supp. 1998). Fowler's conviction
became final in 1990, and he executed his petition on April 1, 1997;
it was received in the district court on April 18, 1997. Fowler had
until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2254 petition. See Brown v.
Angelone, 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). Therefore, his petition was
not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appeala-
bility on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for
further proceedings. We 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.

REMANDED

                     2