United States v. Salas ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 98-7050
CLODOALDO FAUSTINO SALAS, a/k/a
Aldo Salas,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby.
Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.
(CR-93-12-MU, CA-97-132-3-4-MU)
Submitted: October 20, 1998
Decided: November 16, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Clodoaldo Faustino Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying 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 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Subsequent to the
district court's order, we concluded that "a prisoner whose statutory
right to seek federal habeas relief accrued prior to the AEDPA must
receive a reasonable period of time after the statute's effective date
to file his petition." See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370, 374 (4th
Cir. 1998). We determined that a reasonable period is one year from
the effective date of the AEDPA--April, 23, 1997. Id. at 375.
Because Appellant's conviction became final prior to the imple-
mentation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had until April
23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. Appellant's § 2255
motion was dated and sworn on April 22, 1997, and filed in the dis-
trict court on April 28, 1997. We conclude 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 offi-
cials); see also Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998)
(applying Houston to the filing of habeas); 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 limitation purposes).
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