Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Akinsehinwa v. I.C.E., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Christopher Akinsehinwa's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The appeals court also denied Akinsehinwa's motion for injunctive relief and dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7727

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Christopher Akinsehinwa's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The appeals court also denied Akinsehinwa's motion for injunctive relief and dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Akinsehinwa v. I.C.E., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Christopher Akinsehinwa's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in its decision. The appeals court also denied Akinsehinwa's motion for injunctive relief and dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-7727

    CHRISTOPHER AKINSEHINWA,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, (I.C.E.);
    DOUGLAS C. DEVENYNS, Warden of Wicomico County
    Detention Center,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-05-2366-WDQ)

    Submitted: March 23, 2006

    Decided: March 29, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher Akinsehinwa, Appellant Pro Se.


    Rod J. Rosenstein,
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; George William
    Maugans, III, Special United States Attorney, IMMIGRATION AND
    NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher Akinsehinwa appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241
    (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    court.

    the district

    See Akinsehinwa v. I.C.E., No. CA-05-2366-WDQ (D. Md. Oct.

    13, 2005).

    We also deny Akinsehinwas motion for injunctive

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like