UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-7273

JAMES M. HALL, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-90-9, CA-97-309-3)

Submitted: July 31, 1998

Decided: September 16, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James M. Hall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief
on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998). Appellant's conviction became final on December 2, 1991. On
April 29, 1997, Appellant filed a § 2255 motion. The district court
denied relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year
limitation period imposed by § 2255. Pursuant to our recent decision
in Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d #6D6D 6D#, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 

 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23,
1997, in which to file a timely motion. Because Appellant signed his
§ 2255 motion on April 23, 1997, he may have given it to prison offi-
cials by that date. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to
determine when Appellant delivered his § 2255 motion to prison offi-
cials for mailing under Houston v. Lack, 

 (1988). If the
court determines that the § 2255 motion was filed under Houston
before April 24, 1997, then we instruct the court to consider the
§ 2255 motion on the merits under Brown v. Angelone. Accordingly,
we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's order,
and remand this case for consideration consistent with this opinion.
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