United States v. Stanford

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-6619
MELVIN M. STANFORD, a/k/a Slim,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson E. Legg, District Judge.
(CR-82-351, CA-97-923-L)
Submitted: July 6, 1999
Decided: August 26, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Melvin M. Stanford, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Stanford appeals the district court's order denying as
untimely filed his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999). He claims that his motion was filed within the statutory limita-
tions period, and we agree. Where the prisoner's conviction became
final prior to the enactment date of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the one-year limitations period
provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999), will run from
April 24, 1996, the effective date of the statute. See Brown v.
Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1998). Because Stanford's
motion was executed on March 28, 1997, it was timely filed. Accord-
ingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the order of the
district court, and remand the matter for further proceedings.* We
express no opinion on the merits of Stanford's motion. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
*Indeed, the district court has recognized the error and has reopened
the case. We vacate the district court's dismissal order simply to ensure
that the district court possesses jurisdiction to proceed.
2