Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Smith v. LaManna, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randy Smith filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 raising a United States v. Booker claim. The district court construed it as a §2255 motion. On appeal, Smith argued his claim should be considered under §2241. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Smith did not meet the standard for §2241 as set forth in In re Jones, which allows a §2241 petition if a §2255 motion is "inadequate or ineffective."

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Smith v. LaManna, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Randy Smith filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 raising a United States v. Booker claim. The district court construed it as a §2255 motion. On appeal, Smith argued his claim should be considered under §2241. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Smith did not meet the standard for §2241 as set forth in In re Jones, which allows a §2241 petition if a §2255 motion is "inadequate or ineffective."

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-02-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7387

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Randy Smith filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 raising a United States v. Booker claim. The district court construed it as a §2255 motion. On appeal, Smith argued his claim should be considered under §2241. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Smith did not meet the standard for §2241 as set forth in In re Jones, which allows a §2241 petition if a §2255 motion is "inadequate or ineffective."

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Smith v. LaManna, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Randy Smith filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 raising a United States v. Booker claim. The district court construed it as a §2255 motion. On appeal, Smith argued his claim should be considered under §2241. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Smith did not meet the standard for §2241 as set forth in In re Jones, which allows a §2241 petition if a §2255 motion is "inadequate or ineffective."

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7387

    RANDY SMITH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden of FCI-Edgefield,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-05-1223-9)

    Submitted: January 26, 2006

    Decided: February 2, 2006

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randy Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Randy Smith, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under
    28 U.S.C.

    2241 (2000), raising a claim under United States v.

    Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although the district court construed
    the 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000),
    Smith clearly intended to file a 2241 petition.

    Smith argues on

    appeal that 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the


    legality of his detention, contending that his Booker claim should
    be considered in the context of his 2241 petition.

    Because Smith

    does not meet the standard under In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34
    (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the denial of relief.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like