United States v. Townes

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/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED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 _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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