UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 97-7533
ANDREW DALCOSTA HAMBLIN, a/k/a
Drew,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CR-92-348-A, CA-97-828-AM)

Submitted: July 21, 1998

Decided: August 3, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Andrew Dalcosta Hamblin, Appellant Pro Se. Susanna C. Lorenzo-
Giguere, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexan-
dria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Hamblin appeals the district court order dismissing as
untimely his motion for relief filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). The district court found that Hamblin filed his
motion more than one year after the effective date of the Antiterro-
rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Hamblin
claims that he mailed his motion to the district court within the one-
year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The record contains a
copy of a receipt for certified mail supporting Hamblin's assertion
that he placed his § 2255 motion in the prison mailbox no later than
April 23, 1997. Under the rationale set forth in Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988), and its progeny, we find that the district court should
have considered Hamblin's motion as having been filed on April 23,
1997. See In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997).

Hamblin's conviction became final on March 30, 1994. Because he
had until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2255 motion, see Brown v.
Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208), his petition was not time barred. For these
reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the
district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. We dis-
pense 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
