UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-6995

EDWARD JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-184-A, CA-98-99-AM)

Submitted: November 19, 1998

Decided: December 7, 1998

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

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edward Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn Cameron Alexander,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Edward Johnson appeals the district court's order denying his
motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998) as time-barred and a subsequent order denying his motion to
alter or amend the district court's first order. Because we find that
Johnson's § 2255 motion was timely filed, we vacate and remand.

Johnson's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by this Court
on September 10, 1996. The United States Supreme Court denied his
petition for a writ of certiorari on January 13, 1997. Johnson, an
incarcerated inmate, mailed his § 2255 motion on January 9, 1998.
Because Johnson filed his § 2255 motion within a year after his peti-
tion for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, we con-
clude that the district court erred in dismissing Johnson's motion as
untimely filed. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255; Williams v. Dixon, 961 F.2d
448, 453 n.2 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of
appealability as to the district court's timeliness determination, vacate
the district court's order denying his § 2255 motion, and remand for
further proceedings. 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
