United States v. Hastings

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 21, 2003
• Docket: 02-7409
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 02-7409 CHRISTOPHER HASTINGS, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-98-600, CA-01-2783-2-23)

Submitted: May 7, 2003

Decided: May 21, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Christopher Hastings, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 UNITED STATES v. HASTINGS OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Hastings appeals the order of the district court dismiss- ing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely filed.* In calculating the limitations period applicable to Hastings’s motion, the district court relied on United States v. Torres, 211 F.3d 836, 839 (4th Cir. 2000). Since then, the United States Supreme Court has overruled Torres. See Clay v. United States, 123 S. Ct. 1072 (2003). Accord- ingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for consider- ation in light of Clay and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 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

*The district court granted Hastings’s motion for a certificate of appealability.