Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Boone v. Hickey, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Shirley J. Boone, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her conviction and sentence and raising a claim under United States v. Booker. The district court construed Boone's petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On appeal, Boone argued that her claims should be considered under § 2241 because § 2255 is inadequate. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Boone did not meet the standard to bring her claims under § 2241 instead of § 2255.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7606

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Shirley J. Boone, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her conviction and sentence and raising a claim under United States v. Booker. The district court construed Boone's petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On appeal, Boone argued that her claims should be considered under § 2241 because § 2255 is inadequate. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Boone did not meet the standard to bring her claims under § 2241 instead of § 2255.

    Copyright:

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

    Boone v. Hickey, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Shirley J. Boone, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her conviction and sentence and raising a claim under United States v. Booker. The district court construed Boone's petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On appeal, Boone argued that her claims should be considered under § 2241 because § 2255 is inadequate. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding that Boone did not meet the standard to bring her claims under § 2241 instead of § 2255.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-7606

    SHIRLEY J. BOONE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-1143-1)

    Submitted: December 22, 2005

    Decided: January 4, 2006

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Shirley J. Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Shirley J. Boone, a federal prisoner, filed a petition
    under 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000), challenging the validity of her
    conviction and sentence and raising a claim under United States v.
    Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

    Though the district court accepted

    the magistrate judges recommendation and construed the 2241


    petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000), Boone clearly
    intended to file a 2241 petition.

    Boone argues on appeal that

    2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of her


    detention, contending that her claims should be considered in the
    context of her 2241 petition.

    Because Boone does not meet the

    standard set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.
    2000), we affirm the denial of relief.

    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.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like