UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-6683 ANTHONY MCQUEEN, a/k/a Champ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-26-1, CA-98-201-7-BR) Submitted: July 31, 2000 Decided: August 22, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Anthony McQueen appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion as untimely filed under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. McQueen raised the issue of equitable tolling in his response to the Govern- ment's motion to dismiss the 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The district court did not specifically address the issue in its order. Subsequent to the district court's order, this court decided that 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2244(d) (West Supp. 2000) is a statute of limitation and is subject to equitable tolling in limited circumstances. See Harris v. Hutchin- son, 209 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2000). We vacate the district court's order and remand the case for the limited purpose of having the court consider the tolling issues in light of Harris v. Hutchinson.

We grant a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED