# Copson v. VA Parole Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 12, 2000

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1002499

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 12, 2000
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1002499

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JASON A. COPSON, a/k/a Scott E.
Berry,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 98-7832
v.

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-98-1388-AM)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: September 12, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jason A. Copson, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jason Copson appeals the district court's order dismissing as
untimely a pro se petition that he labeled as filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We find that the court should have
construed Copson's petition as one filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(West 1994). Because § 2241 petitions are not subject to the one-year
time limitation period prescribed by 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2244(d)(1) (West
1994 & Supp. 2000), we conclude the district court erroneously dis-
missed Copson's petition as untimely filed. Because reasonable jurists
would find it debatable whether Copson made a substantial showing
of the a denial of a constitutional right in his§ 2241 petition, we grant
a certificate of appealability as to whether Copson was deprived of
due process in the execution of his sentence. See Slack v. McDaniel,
120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000); 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c) (West Supp. 2000).
We further vacate the district court's order and remand the case for
the court to consider the merits of Copson's claims under § 2241. 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1002499. Public record. Not legal advice.