UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-6995

EDWARD JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-184-A, CA-98-99-AM)

Submitted: November 19, 1998

Decided: December 7, 1998

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

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edward Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn Cameron Alexander, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir- ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Edward Johnson appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998) as time-barred and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend the district court's first order. Because we find that Johnson's § 2255 motion was timely filed, we vacate and remand.

Johnson's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by this Court on September 10, 1996. The United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari on January 13, 1997. Johnson, an incarcerated inmate, mailed his § 2255 motion on January 9, 1998. Because Johnson filed his § 2255 motion within a year after his peti- tion for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, we con- clude that the district court erred in dismissing Johnson's motion as untimely filed. See

; Williams v. Dixon,

, 453 n.2 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability as to the district court's timeliness determination, vacate the district court's order denying his § 2255 motion, and remand for further proceedings. We dispense 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