OPINION

Linwood Ruffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing a letter as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion and denying relief. The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644 (4th Cir. 2002), when it construed Ruffin’s letter as a § 2255 motion. Because Ruffin was not given notice of the district court’s intention to construe his *523 letter as a § 2255 motion or notice of the consequences, we grant a certificate of ap-pealability and vacate the court’s order and remand for further proceedings in light of Emmanuel. 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.