United States v. Smith

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Smith

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7055

KEMBA NIAMBI SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-162, CA-97-411-2)

Submitted: August 27, 1998

Decided: September 15, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George Kendall, Leah Song Richardson, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, New York, New York; Gerald Thomas Zerkin, GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Vir- ginia, for Appellant. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kemba Niambi Smith appeals from a district court order that con- cluded her motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 1998). Smith's conviction became final in 1995, and she filed her habeas motion on April 23, 1997. Because Smith had until April 23, 1997 to file her § 2255 motion, see Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___,

1998 WL 389030

(4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208), her motion 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished