Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Parker v., 96-597 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-597 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-597 In Re: GERALD PARKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CR-94-73, CA-96-90-4-BO) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Parker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner asks this court to grant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-597 In Re: GERALD PARKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CR-94-73, CA-96-90-4-BO) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Parker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner asks this court to grant his petition for an orig- inal writ of habeas corpus in connection with his convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana and cocaine and for maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing marijuana. While this court has the authority to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), we decline to do so in this case. Petitioner filed a motion for relief in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. The proper course of action is for Petitioner to pursue the appeal he has already filed with this court challenging the district court's order denying his § 2255 motion. We therefore deny Petitioner's petition for an original writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 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 decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer