United States v. McLaughlin

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-7658 JAMES MCLAUGHLIN, a/k/a Mac, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-47, CA-98-953-2) Submitted: April 27, 1999 Decided: May 25, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James McLaughlin, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: McLaughlin appeals the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Because we find that Johnson's § 2255 motion was timely filed, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings. The United States Supreme Court denied McLaughlin's petition for a writ of certiorari on October 6, 1997, and McLaughlin mailed his § 2255 motion from prison on August 13, 1998. Because McLaughlin filed* his § 2255 motion within a year after the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing McLaughlin's motion as untimely filed. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255; United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737, 744 (10th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order denying McLaughlin's § 2255 motion, and remand for further proceedings. 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 _________________________________________________________________ *See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2