United States v. Townes ( 1999 )

Filed: November 1, 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6880
(CR-94-49-R, CA-97-310-3)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Edward L. Townes,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 2, 1998, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 3, line 4 -- the district court’s
civil number is corrected to read “CA-97-310-3.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-6880
EDWARD L. TOWNES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-94-49-R, CA-97-310-3)
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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Edward L. Townes, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 on October 24, 1995. On
April 22, 1997, 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 ___, Nos. 96-7173,
96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), however, Appel-
lant 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 dis-
pense 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