Filed: Jul. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6655 LOUIS CARL JEMISON, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS; ALBERTO GONZALES; PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00403-HEH) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6655 LOUIS CARL JEMISON, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS; ALBERTO GONZALES; PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00403-HEH) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6655 LOUIS CARL JEMISON, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS; ALBERTO GONZALES; PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00403-HEH) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis Carol Jemison, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Louis Carl Jemison, III, appeals the district court order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court memorandum order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Jemison v. U.S. Marshals, No. 3:07-cv-00403-HEH (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2008). We deny Jemison’s motion for 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 -
