The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-6655•Louis Carl Jemison, Iii v. U.S. MARSHALS; ALBERTO GONZALES; PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden
08-6655Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 25, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6655
LOUIS CARL JEMISON, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
U.S. MARSHALS; ALBERTO GONZALES; PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-00403-HEH)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Carol Jemison, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland
Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Louis Carl Jemison, III, appeals the district court order
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court
memorandum order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district
court. See Jemison v. U.S. Marshals, No. 3:07-cv-00403-HEH (E.D.
Va. Feb. 20, 2008). We deny Jemison’s motion for 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.