Filed: May 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6185 GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION JUDGE; ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-03442-WDQ) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6185 GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION JUDGE; ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-03442-WDQ) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6185
GBEKE MICHAEL AWALA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
IMMIGRATION JUDGE; ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cv-03442-WDQ)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gbeke Michael Awala, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gbeke Michael Awala, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Awala v. Immigration
Judge, No. 1:09-cv-03442-WDQ (D. Md. Jan. 7, 2010). 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
2