UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-6956

LEROY BOONE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-149-N, CA-96-372-2)

Submitted: February 10, 1998

Decided: February 25, 1998

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Leroy Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Alberi, Special Assis- tant United States Attorney, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Boone appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 (1994) (current version at

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). The district court found that before Boone could file a successive § 2255 motion, he must obtain authorization from this court to do so. Because we find that authorization is not required, we vacate and remand.

Boone filed a successive § 2255 motion on April 8, 1996, raising six claims. He then filed an addendum on April 25, 1996, contending that his conviction for using and carrying a firearm should be over- turned in light of Bailey v. United States,

(1995). Boone filed his § 2255 motion before April 24, 1996 (the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA")). Moreover, the envelope in which Boone mailed the addendum bears a postmark of April 23, 1996. Under Houston v. Lack,

(1988), the addendum is deemed filed when Boone handed it to prison officials for mailing-- before the AEDPA's effective date. See Burns v. Morton, ___ F.3d ___, ___,

(3d Cir. 1998). Because authoriza- tion from this court is not required, see Breard v. Pruett, ___ F.3d ___, ___,

(4th Cir. 1998) (holding that pre- AEDPA law applies if habeas corpus proceeding filed before AEDPA's effective date) (citing Howard v. Moore ,

(4th Cir. 1997) (en banc)), we 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