Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1043 In Re: CHARLES DOGAN, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (2:96-cr-00066-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Dogan, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Dogan, Jr., filed a petition for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1043 In Re: CHARLES DOGAN, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (2:96-cr-00066-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Dogan, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Dogan, Jr., filed a petition for an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1043
In Re: CHARLES DOGAN, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(2:96-cr-00066-1)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Dogan, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Dogan, Jr., filed a petition for an original
writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1997 conviction for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. This court
ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas petitions filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), and this case provides no reason
to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the
interests of justice would not be served by transferring the
case to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006); Fed.
R. App. P. 22(a). Accordingly, we 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