Filed: Nov. 06, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6431 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL B. MUSKASEY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA; MICHAEL CHERTOFF; SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-cv- 00347-RWT) Submitted: October 10, 2008 Decided: November 6, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6431 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL B. MUSKASEY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA; MICHAEL CHERTOFF; SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-cv- 00347-RWT) Submitted: October 10, 2008 Decided: November 6, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6431 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL B. MUSKASEY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA; MICHAEL CHERTOFF; SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-cv- 00347-RWT) Submitted: October 10, 2008 Decided: November 6, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani, a Maryland state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. Asemani v. Mukasey, No. 8:08-cv-00347-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2008). 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 - 2 -
