Filed: Jul. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1277 In re: WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: July 3, 2018 Decided: July 12, 2018 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd filed a petition for an orig
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1277 In re: WILLIAM SANFORD GADD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Submitted: July 3, 2018 Decided: July 12, 2018 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Sanford Gadd filed a petition for an origi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1277
In re: WILLIAM SANFORD GADD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Submitted: July 3, 2018 Decided: July 12, 2018
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Sanford Gadd, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Sanford Gadd filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus
challenging the 235-month sentence imposed following his convictions for his role in a
multi-faceted, interstate fraud scheme. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original
habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason
to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the interest of justice would not be
served by transferring the case to the district court. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012).
Accordingly, we deny Gadd’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his
motion for appointment of counsel, deny as moot his motion for a ruling on the petition,
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