United States v. Bannerman ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                      No. 97-7068
    FRANKLYN EARL BANNERMAN,
    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-90-105-N, CA-97-287-2)
    Submitted: August 18, 1998
    Decided: September 21, 1998
    Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Jeffrey Scott 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Franklyn Bannerman appeals from a district court order that con-
    cluded his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period provided
    by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.
    L. No. 104-32, 
    110 Stat. 1214
    . Bannerman was convicted in 1991,
    and he filed his habeas motion on March 14, 1997. Bannerman 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.
    Accordingly, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-7068

Filed Date: 9/21/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014