Filed: Feb. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7566 In Re: JOSEPH J. SCHEPIS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CR-91-425; CA-05-2287-0-JFA) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., Petitioner. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph J. Schepi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7566 In Re: JOSEPH J. SCHEPIS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CR-91-425; CA-05-2287-0-JFA) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., Petitioner. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph J. Schepis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7566 In Re: JOSEPH J. SCHEPIS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CR-91-425; CA-05-2287-0-JFA) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., Petitioner. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., petitions for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the motion and deny it as unnecessary because authorization from this court is not required to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. However, to the extent that Schepis seeks to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, authorization must be applied for under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). Accordingly, we deny the petition as unnecessary. We deny Schepis’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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 DENIED - 2 -
