Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Stanford, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates and remands a district court order denying Melvin Stanford's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 as untimely. The appeals court agrees with Stanford that his motion was timely filed within the one-year limitations period provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) because his conviction became final prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As Stanford's motion was executed on March 28, 1997, it was timely. The appeals court therefore grants a certificate of appealability, vacates the district court's dismissal order, and rem

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-08-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6619

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates and remands a district court order denying Melvin Stanford's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 as untimely. The appeals court agrees with Stanford that his motion was timely filed within the one-year limitations period provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) because his conviction became final prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As Stanford's motion was executed on March 28, 1997, it was timely. The appeals court therefore grants a certificate of appealability, vacates the district court's dismissal order, and rem

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. Stanford, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates and remands a district court order denying Melvin Stanford's motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 as untimely. The appeals court agrees with Stanford that his motion was timely filed within the one-year limitations period provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) because his conviction became final prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As Stanford's motion was executed on March 28, 1997, it was timely. The appeals court therefore grants a certificate of appealability, vacates the district court's dismissal order, and rem

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.

    No. 99-6619

    MELVIN M. STANFORD, a/k/a Slim,


    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Benson E. Legg, District Judge.
    (CR-82-351, CA-97-923-L)
    Submitted: July 6, 1999
    Decided: August 26, 1999
    Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Melvin M. Stanford, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Melvin Stanford appeals the district court's order denying as
    untimely filed his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    1999). He claims that his motion was filed within the statutory limitations period, and we agree. Where the prisoner's conviction became
    final prior to the enactment date of the Antiterrorism and Effective
    Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the one-year limitations period
    provided by 28 U.S.C.A. 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999), will run from
    April 24, 1996, the effective date of the statute. See Brown v.
    Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1998). Because Stanford's
    motion was executed on March 28, 1997, it was timely filed. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the order of the
    district court, and remand the matter for further proceedings.* We
    express no opinion on the merits of Stanford's motion. 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
    _________________________________________________________________
    *Indeed, the district court has recognized the error and has reopened
    the case. We vacate the district court's dismissal order simply to ensure
    that the district court possesses jurisdiction to proceed.
    2

    You might also like