United States v. Snipe ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 97-6711
MICHAEL SNIPE, a/k/a Michael
Martin, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Mike,
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-91-9-N, CA-97-396-2)
Submitted: September 8, 1998
Decided: September 22, 1998
Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Michael Snipe, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court's order dismissing his motion
filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred
by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.
1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Appellant's conviction became final
in July 1992. Because Appellant's conviction became final prior to
the implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had
until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown
v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208).
Appellant's § 2255 motion was dated April 21, 1997, postmarked
April 22, and filed on April 24. Thus, Appellant's motion was not
time barred. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice
of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials); see
also Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying
Houston to the filing of habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City
Police Dep't, 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston
to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitations purposes).
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,
vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.
We deny appellant's motions for entry of default and summary judg-
ment. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2