UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                        No. 97-6711
MICHAEL SNIPE, a/k/a Michael
Martin, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Mike,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-91-9-N, CA-97-396-2)

Submitted: September 8, 1998

Decided: September 22, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael Snipe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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). Appellant's conviction became final
in July 1992. Because Appellant's conviction became final prior to
the implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had
until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown
v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 

(4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208).

Appellant's § 2255 motion was dated April 21, 1997, postmarked
April 22, and filed on April 24. Thus, Appellant's motion was not
time barred. See Houston v. Lack, 

, 276 (1988) (notice
of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials); see
also Burns v. Morton, 

, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying
Houston to the filing of habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City
Police Dep't, 

, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston
to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitations purposes).

Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,
vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.
We deny appellant's motions for entry of default and summary judg-
ment. 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

                     2