Filed: Sep. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1723 In re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3:11-CV-00125-HEH) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Bute
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1723 In re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3:11-CV-00125-HEH) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Buter..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1723
In re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(3:11-CV-00125-HEH)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams filed a petition for an original
writ of habeas corpus, seeking to challenge the validity of a
state court judgment. This court ordinarily declines to
entertain an original habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from
this general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of
justice would not be served by transferring the matter to the
appropriate district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012); Fed.
R. App. P. 22(a). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
2