Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Gadd v., 07-6204 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6204 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 20, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6204 In Re: WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1:02-cr-00240) Submitted: July 2, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd filed a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6204 In Re: WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1:02-cr-00240) Submitted: July 2, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions for his role in a multi-faceted, interstate fraud scheme and his resulting 235- month sentence. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we note that Gadd has filed an identical motion in the district court seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Because the interests of justice would not be served by transferring a duplicative case to the district court, we deny Gadd’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000). We also deny his pending motions for production of documents and his motion for ruling on his petition without delay. 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer