Filed: May 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2109 In Re: MICHAEL A. SMITH, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3:96-cr-00058-jpj-l) Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Smith, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. Smith, Sr., filed a petition for an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2109 In Re: MICHAEL A. SMITH, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3:96-cr-00058-jpj-l) Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Smith, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. Smith, Sr., filed a petition for an ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2109
In Re: MICHAEL A. SMITH, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(3:96-cr-00058-jpj-l)
Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Smith, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Smith, Sr., filed a petition for an
original writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1997 conviction
for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. This
court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas petitions
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), and this case provides no
reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that
the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the
case to the district court. * See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006); Fed.
R. App. P. 22(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. 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
*
The district court has previously denied Smith’s motion
for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(West Supp. 2008), see United States v. Smith, No. 7:99-cv-
00135-jct-gc (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 1999). On appeal, this court
denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed. United
States v. Smith, No. 00-6128,
2000 WL 429934 (4th Cir. Apr. 21,
2000) (unpublished). Should Smith wish to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion in the district court, he must seek
authorization from this court to do so, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)
(2006).
2