Filed: Dec. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HUNTER, a/k/a Big Mike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-156; CA-05-192-2) Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HUNTER, a/k/a Big Mike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-156; CA-05-192-2) Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6989
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL HUNTER, a/k/a Big Mike,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-156; CA-05-192-2)
Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Hunter, a federal prisoner, filed a petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), raising a claim under United
States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Though the district court
construed the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000), Hunter clearly intended to file a § 2241 petition. Hunter
argues on appeal that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test
the legality of his detention, contending that his Booker claim
should be considered in the context of his § 2241 petition.
Because Hunter does not meet the standard under In re Jones,
226
F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the denial of relief.
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
- 2 -