Filed: Mar. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7009 JABARI ZAKIYA, formerly known as Douglas Ross, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN HAWK, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-468-AM) Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 25, 1999 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir- cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7009 JABARI ZAKIYA, formerly known as Douglas Ross, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN HAWK, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-468-AM) Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 25, 1999 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir- cui..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7009
JABARI ZAKIYA, formerly known as Douglas Ross,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
KATHLEEN HAWK, Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-468-AM)
Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 25, 1999
Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jabari Zakiya, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jabari Zakiya appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the district
court’s earlier order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Zakiya v. Hawk,
No. CA-98-468-AM (E.D. Va. May 28, 1998). We also deny Zakiya’s
petition for a writ of mandamus essentially seeking the same relief
as prayed for in his Rule 60(b) motion. See In re Beard,
811 F.2d
818 (4th Cir. 1987). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2