Filed: May 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7199 CARL A. EUBANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; B. G. COMPTON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-307) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7199 CARL A. EUBANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; B. G. COMPTON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-04-307) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7199
CARL A. EUBANKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; B. G. COMPTON,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-04-307)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl A. Eubanks appeals a district court order dismissing
without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and
affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Eubanks v.
United States, No. CA-04-307 (W.D. Va. filed June 17, 2004; entered
June 18, 2004). 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.*
AFFIRMED
*
To the extent that Eubanks may be seeking authorization under
28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion on the basis of the rules announced in United
States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we deny authorization.
- 2 -