   The government has conceded that Abdullah's § 924(c) conviction is invalid after
Bailey and Bousley. The majority asserts that the one-year time limit of April 24, 1997,
set forth in AEDPA bars any relief. Because of the unique circumstances of this case,
which include Abdullah's timely filing of a pro se motion raising the Bailey issue, the
district court's disregard of Abdullah's motion, the return of the motion to his attorney
(apparently without notifying Abdullah), and the complete failure of his attorney to
assert the issue because of apparent illness, I must respectfully dissent.

       When this matter was first before the court in 1991, Attorney Timothy Stein
represented Abdullah. Stein withdrew from the representation after we affirmed
Abdullah's conviction. The record indicates that on May 22, 1995,heart failure in the first week of July. He stated that he would nonetheless be
able to handle matters if he could have an additional four-week extension.

        Bailey was decided in December, 1995. On March 5, 1996, Abdullah filed a pro
se motion raising the Bailey issue present in his case. Neither Takiff, nor local counsel,
Rohwer, ever raised the issue at any point in their representation of Abdullah. On July
29, 1996, Abdullah called the clerk of court's office and was informed that he should
file further proceedings through his attorney of record. On August 19, 1996, Judge
Fenner, the new judge to whom the case had been assigned, entered an order
instructing the clerk of court to return Abdullah's motion to Takiff. From the record it
does