OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Johnny Mull seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). The district court determined sua sponte that Mull’s petition was untimely and dismissed the petition without affording Mull notice or an opportunity to respond. Because it is not indisputably clear from the face of Mull’s § 2254 petition that his petition is untimely, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for the court to provide Mull with the appropriate notice. See Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir.2002). We deny Mull’s mo tion for appointed counsel and his motion for injunctive relief. We express no opinion as to either the merits of Mull’s petition or whether his filing was untimely. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
We note the district court issued its order before our opinion in Hill issued.