Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Encarnacion v. Nash, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Malcolm Encarnacion appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the reasoning provided by the district court. Additionally, the appellate court did not consider new claims Encarnacion sought to raise in response to the opposition, as those were uncertified § 2255 claims not properly before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Encarnacion v. Nash, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Malcolm Encarnacion appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the reasoning provided by the district court. Additionally, the appellate court did not consider new claims Encarnacion sought to raise in response to the opposition, as those were uncertified § 2255 claims not properly before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7747

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Malcolm Encarnacion appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the reasoning provided by the district court. Additionally, the appellate court did not consider new claims Encarnacion sought to raise in response to the opposition, as those were uncertified § 2255 claims not properly before the court.

    Copyright:

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

    Encarnacion v. Nash, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Malcolm Encarnacion appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the reasoning provided by the district court. Additionally, the appellate court did not consider new claims Encarnacion sought to raise in response to the opposition, as those were uncertified § 2255 claims not properly before the court.

    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. 01-7747

    MALCOLM EUGENE ENCARNACION,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN NASH, Warden, FCI Ray Brook,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-00-354-BO)

    Submitted:

    February 14, 2002

    Decided:

    February 26, 2002

    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Malcolm Eugene Encarnacion, Appellant Pro Se.
    Robert Edward
    Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Malcolm Eugene Encarnacion appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition.

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find no
    reversible error.*

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

    ability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    Encarnacion v. Nash, No. CA-00-354-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2001). 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.

    DISMISSED

    The claims Appellant seeks to raise for the first time in


    response to the Respondents opposition to the 2241 petition are
    attempts to raise uncertified claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255
    (West Supp. 2001), and as such, are not properly before this court.
    2

    You might also like