UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7533 ANDREW DALCOSTA HAMBLIN, a/k/a Drew, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-348-A, CA-97-828-AM) Submitted: July 21, 1998 Decided: August 3, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Andrew Dalcosta Hamblin, Appellant Pro Se. Susanna C. Lorenzo- Giguere, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexan- dria, Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Andrew Hamblin appeals the district court order dismissing as untimely his motion for relief filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). The district court found that Hamblin filed his motion more than one year after the effective date of the Antiterro- rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Hamblin claims that he mailed his motion to the district court within the one- year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The record contains a copy of a receipt for certified mail supporting Hamblin's assertion that he placed his § 2255 motion in the prison mailbox no later than April 23, 1997. Under the rationale set forth in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), and its progeny, we find that the district court should have considered Hamblin's motion as having been filed on April 23, 1997. See In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997).

Hamblin's conviction became final on March 30, 1994. Because he 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), his petition was not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. 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