UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JAMES DAMON SUMPTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-6946
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-90-25)
Submitted: September 8, 1998
Decided: November 23, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
James Damon Sumpter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Jaspen,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA), established a one-year lim-
itations period for filing motions under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). In Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-
7173, 96-7205, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), we deter-
mined that the one-year limitations period did not apply retroactively.
See id. at *5-6. Therefore, a person whose conviction became final
before the effective date of the AEDPA had until April 23, 1997, to
file a § 2255 motion. See id. at *6.
James Sumpter pleaded guilty to drug offenses in 1990. He did not
appeal his conviction or sentence. On April 28, 1997, his § 2255
motion, which was notarized on April 22, 1997, was filed in the dis-
trict court. The district court dismissed the motion because it was filed
more than one year after the date Sumpter's conviction became final.
Sumpter appeals that decision.
We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of
appealability, vacate the order of the district court, and remand for
further proceedings. First, the district court must determine when
Sumpter delivered the motion to prison officials for mailing. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Burns v. Morton, 134
F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998). If the court finds that Sumpter delivered
the motion by April 23, 1997, the motion will be deemed timely filed,
and the district court presumably should address the merits of Sump-
ter's claims.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2