UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7777
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALBERT RANDOLPH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-01-304; CA-04-622)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Albert J. Randolph appeals from the order of the district
court dismissing as untimely his motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
The district court granted a certificate of appealability. Finding
that the unique circumstances of this case warrant an application
of equitable tolling, we vacate the order of the district court and
remand for further proceedings.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) includes a one-year statute of limitations for § 2255
motions brought by federal prisoners. This limitations period is
subject to equitable tolling where a prisoner has been precluded
from compliance by circumstances external to his own conduct. See
United States v. Prescott, 221 F.3d 686, 688 (4th Cir. 2000). In
the instant matter, the district court misplaced Randolph’s motion
for assistance with the production of his attorney’s file, and it
failed to discover this oversight until after Randolph’s
opportunity to file a § 2255 motion had lapsed. Under these
circumstances, we conclude that the application of equitable
tolling is appropriate.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and
remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 2 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -