Filed: Mar. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7773 In Re: ROOSEVELT A. MATHENY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error. (CR-99-176) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 21, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt A. Matheny, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roosevelt A. Matheny, a federal prison
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7773 In Re: ROOSEVELT A. MATHENY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Error. (CR-99-176) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 21, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt A. Matheny, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roosevelt A. Matheny, a federal prisone..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7773
In Re: ROOSEVELT A. MATHENY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error. (CR-99-176)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 21, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roosevelt A. Matheny, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt A. Matheny, a federal prisoner, filed a
petition for writ of error claiming that he was sentenced in 2000
to 188 months in prison, in violation of Blakely v. Washington,
124
S. Ct. 2531 (2004). He seeks correction of the alleged Blakely
error. Matheny is in custody and has available another means to
raise his claim--namely a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255
(2000). See United States v. Sawyer,
239 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir.
2001); United States v. Wilson,
901 F.2d 378, 380 (4th Cir. 1990).
We therefore deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss the petition for writ of error. 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.
PETITION DISMISSED
- 2 -