¶1 OPINION
¶2 Tony Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for further proceedmgs.
¶3 The district court, aetmg sua sponte, determined from the face of Hawkms’ petition that Ms claims were barred by the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp.2001), and dismissed the action without giving Haw-kms notice or an opportunity to respond. Our recent decision m Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir.2002), now requires the district court to provide such a warMng “rniless it is Mdisputably clear from the materials presented to the district court that the petition is untimely and cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling principles or any of the circumstances enumerated in § 2244(d)(1).” Id. at 707.
¶4 Because it is not “indisputably clear” that Hawkins cannot salvage his petition, masmuch as the relevant dates of his various state court proceedmgs do not appear in the record, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand to the district court to provide Hawkins with the notice and opportunity to respond to which he is now entitled pursuant to Hill. 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.
¶5 VACATED AND REMANDED.