Filed: Oct. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1071 CURTIS KORAN LENNON, Petitioner, versus PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-473-964) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nita Dobroshi, LAW OFFICES OF SPAR & BERNSTEIN, P.C., New York, New York, for Pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1071 CURTIS KORAN LENNON, Petitioner, versus PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-473-964) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nita Dobroshi, LAW OFFICES OF SPAR & BERNSTEIN, P.C., New York, New York, for Pet..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1071 CURTIS KORAN LENNON, Petitioner, versus PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-473-964) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nita Dobroshi, LAW OFFICES OF SPAR & BERNSTEIN, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis Koran Lennon, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a final administrative order of removal issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (2000). We have carefully reviewed the record and the administrative order and conclude that Lennon has waived his right to file a petition for review of the order. Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss Lennon’s petition for review. 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 DISMISSED - 2 -