Filed: Oct. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6995 CHRISTOPHER I. MURRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; BENEDICT I. FERRO, District Director; JAMES D. HOLLIS, Deportation Officer, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1704-AMD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: Oct
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6995 CHRISTOPHER I. MURRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; BENEDICT I. FERRO, District Director; JAMES D. HOLLIS, Deportation Officer, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1704-AMD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: Octo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6995 CHRISTOPHER I. MURRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; BENEDICT I. FERRO, District Director; JAMES D. HOLLIS, Deportation Officer, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1704-AMD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher I. Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order declining to issue a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252a(a)(3)(B) (West Supp. 1997). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
