Filed: Feb. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2168 In Re: KODILINYE OGONNA OJUKWU, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (8:09-cr-00470-PJM; 8:09-cv-02238-PJM; 8:09-mj-01457-TMD) Submitted: February 8, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kodilinye Ogonna Ojukwu, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2168 In Re: KODILINYE OGONNA OJUKWU, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (8:09-cr-00470-PJM; 8:09-cv-02238-PJM; 8:09-mj-01457-TMD) Submitted: February 8, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kodilinye Ogonna Ojukwu, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: K..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2168
In Re: KODILINYE OGONNA OJUKWU,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(8:09-cr-00470-PJM; 8:09-cv-02238-PJM; 8:09-mj-01457-TMD)
Submitted: February 8, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kodilinye Ogonna Ojukwu, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kodilinye Ogonna Ojukwu has filed a petition for an
original writ of habeas corpus challenging his ongoing detention
and raising Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues related
to his ongoing criminal trial in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.
Because Ojukwu is not currently incarcerated within
the Fourth Circuit, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (2006) (providing that a
§ 2241 petition must be filed in the district or circuit of
incarceration); In re Jones,
226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, because the issues that Ojukwu seeks to raise may be
adequately addressed through pretrial motions at his criminal
trial, we find that it would not serve the interest of justice
to transfer the petition to the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006). We
therefore deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismiss the petition. 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