UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DEMARCUS M. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 99-6476 KENNETH L. OSBORNE, Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-189-7) Submitted: July 13, 1999 Decided: August 11, 1999 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL DeMarcus M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant DeMarcus Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order summarily dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and remand.

Brown, a pro se litigant, asserts for the first time on appeal that "good cause" prevented him from timely filing his petition. The dis- trict court summarily dismissed Brown's § 2254 petition without affording Brown an opportunity to present this argument. Liberally construing Brown's notice of appeal and informal brief as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we remand the case to the district court to deter- mine whether "good cause" prevented Brown from timely filing his § 2254 petition. See Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978) ("pleadings should not be scrutinized with such technical nicety that a meritorious claim should be defeated").

Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and remand the case to the district court for decision on Brown's Rule 60(b) motion.

We also deny Brown's request that "copies be made of the Appel- lant's, Appellant Brief, and mailed to the opposing party and their counsel." 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.

REMANDED