Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1620 In Re: ANDRE D. WHITFIELD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3:07-cr-00300-HEH-1) Submitted: September 23, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre D. Whitfield, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Whitfield, a federal prison
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1620 In Re: ANDRE D. WHITFIELD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (3:07-cr-00300-HEH-1) Submitted: September 23, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre D. Whitfield, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Whitfield, a federal prisone..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1620
In Re: ANDRE D. WHITFIELD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(3:07-cr-00300-HEH-1)
Submitted: September 23, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre D. Whitfield, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Whitfield, a federal prisoner, filed an original 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, challenging his various
convictions on the ground that the district court lacked
jurisdiction over the criminal matter. We ordinarily decline to
entertain an original § 2241 petition, and this case presents no
reason to depart from this general rule. Further, we find that
the interest of justice would not be served by transferring the
matter to the appropriate district court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631
(2012); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a), as Whitfield previously filed a
§ 2241 petition in the district court raising the same claim
that he does in this court. We therefore deny 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. We deny the
motion for summary disposition.
PETITION DISMISSED
2