Filed: Sep. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7030 ALFRED SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GEORGE SNYDER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-78-1) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7030 ALFRED SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GEORGE SNYDER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-78-1) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7030
ALFRED SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GEORGE SNYDER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CA-01-78-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alfred Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief
on 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. Although the district court found that Smith
could not proceed under § 2241 with his claims challenging the
legality of his convictions, we find that the court lacked juris-
diction over Smith’s petition because a § 2241 petition must be
filed in the district of confinement—here, Kentucky. United States
v. Miller,
871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of relief on the ground that the district court
lacked jurisdiction but modify the dismissal to be without prej-
udice. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
2