Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Idokogi v. Ashcroft, 02-6721 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6721 Visitors: 37
Filed: Sep. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6721 DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Maryland State Attorney General; CHARLES FELTS, Warden, FDC Oakdale, Louisiana; BENEDICT I. FERRO, Baltimore INS District Director; CHRISTINE G. DAVIS, New Orleans INS District Director; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents - Appel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6721 DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Maryland State Attorney General; CHARLES FELTS, Warden, FDC Oakdale, Louisiana; BENEDICT I. FERRO, Baltimore INS District Director; CHRISTINE G. DAVIS, New Orleans INS District Director; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01- 4039-L) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 10, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Idokogi has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Idokogi v. Ashcroft, No. CA-01-4039-L (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2002; Apr. 19, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). This dismissal is without prejudice to Idokogi’s right to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). 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. DISMISSED 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