Filed: Mar. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1041 In re: RENE JHOVANY RODRIGUES BUSTOS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos has filed an original p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1041 In re: RENE JHOVANY RODRIGUES BUSTOS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos has filed an original pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1041
In re: RENE JHOVANY RODRIGUES BUSTOS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rene Jhovany Rodrigues Bustos has filed an original petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, seeking release from jail and dismissal of indictments issued against him in Wake
County, North Carolina. We ordinarily decline to entertain original habeas corpus
petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case presents no reason to depart from
this practice. Because Bustos appears to be awaiting trial in Wake County and has not
exhausted remedies available to him in North Carolina state courts, we conclude that the
interests of justice would not be served by transferring this case to the district court.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b) (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