UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-7150

ENRIQUE ALFONSO GAYLE, a/k/a Kiki,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 97-7151
ROBERTO SPALDING, a/k/a Pepito,
a/k/a Pops,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-90-105-N, CA-97-417, CA-97-418)

Submitted: September 29, 1998

Decided: October 19, 1998

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

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Enrique Alfonso Gayle, Roberto Spalding, Appellants Pro Se. Laura
Marie Everhart, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Enrique Gayle and Roberto Spalding seek to appeal the district
court's orders denying relief on their motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellants' convictions became
final in 1993. The district court dismissed their§ 2255 motions, exe-
cuted and deposited in the prison mailing system on April 21, 1997,
as filed outside the one-year limitation period imposed by § 2255.
Pursuant to our recent decision in Brown v. Angelone, 

,
375 (4th Cir. 1998), Appellants had until April 23, 1997, in which to
timely file their motions.

Accordingly, because Appellants filed their motions prior to this
date, we grant certificates of appealability, vacate the district court's
orders, and remand these cases for consideration on the merits.* See
Houston v. Lack, 

 (1988); Burns v. Morton, 

, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houston to habeas petitions). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
*We also grant Appellants' motions for leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis.

                     2