Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Richardson, 97-6698 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6698 Visitors: 42
Filed: Sep. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-6698 CAROL RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.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-90-105-N, CA-97-149-2) Submitted: August 18, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. _ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-6698

CAROL RICHARDSON,
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-90-105-N, CA-97-149-2)

Submitted: August 18, 1998

Decided: September 22, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Carol Richardson, Appellant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Carol Richardson appeals from a district court order finding her
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)
barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 1998). Richardson had until April 23, 1997 to file her
§ 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 
1998 WL 389030
 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Because
she filed the motion on February 3, 1997, it was not time barred. We
therefore grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's
order, and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                     2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer