Filed: Nov. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7288 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner – Appellant, v. FRANK B. BISHOP, Warden, WCI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02075-RDB) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7288 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner – Appellant, v. FRANK B. BISHOP, Warden, WCI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02075-RDB) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7288 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner – Appellant, v. FRANK B. BISHOP, Warden, WCI, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02075-RDB) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 30, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani appeals the district court’s order construing his self-styled application for habeas relief as a petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Asemani v. Bishop, No. 1:12-cv-02075-RDB (D. Md. July 19, 2012). 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. AFFIRMED 2
