Filed: Mar. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6056 In Re: MONTA OLANDER JORDAN, Petitioner. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-103-R) Submitted: February 26, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monta Olander Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not bindin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6056 In Re: MONTA OLANDER JORDAN, Petitioner. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-103-R) Submitted: February 26, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monta Olander Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6056
In Re: MONTA OLANDER JORDAN,
Petitioner.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-94-103-R)
Submitted: February 26, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monta Olander Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Monta Olander Jordan filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. We conclude that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
is an adequate and effective means for Jordan to challenge his
conviction. See In re Jones,
226 F.3d 328, 332-34 (4th Cir. 2000).
We therefore dismiss the petition because its transfer to the
appropriate district court would not serve the interest of justice.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). Leave to
proceed in formal pauperis is denied. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
2