Filed: Mar. 29, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7686 JESUS EDUARDO ROSAS-ZULOAGA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-425-5) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesus
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7686 JESUS EDUARDO ROSAS-ZULOAGA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-425-5) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesus E..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7686
JESUS EDUARDO ROSAS-ZULOAGA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-425-5)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesus Eduardo Rosas-Zuloaga, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Eduardo Rosas-Zuloaga, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
ground that Zuloaga’s petition is properly charaterized as an
unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Rosas-Zuloaga may be seeking authorization
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive
§ 2255 motion based on the rules announced in United States v.
Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington,
542 U.S.
296 (2004), we deny authorization.
- 2 -