Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Sharu Bey v. Warden Hollenbeck, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Sharu Bey, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. It also denied Bey's motion for bail pending appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Sharu Bey v. Warden Hollenbeck, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Sharu Bey, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. It also denied Bey's motion for bail pending appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6468

    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 summarizes a court case in which Sharu Bey, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. It also denied Bey's motion for bail pending appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Sharu Bey v. Warden Hollenbeck, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Sharu Bey, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons stated. It also denied Bey's motion for bail pending appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    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. 15-6468

    SHARU BEY,
    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN HOLLENBECK,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:14-hc-02016-FL)

    Submitted:

    September 24, 2015

    Decided:

    October 5, 2015

    Before MOTZ, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sharu Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sharu Bey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district courts
    order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2012) petition without
    prejudice.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

    pauperis,

    we

    court.

    Bey

    affirm
    v.

    Feb. 27, 2015).


    and dispense
    contentions

    the

    Hollenbeck,

    reasons
    No.

    stated

    by

    the

    5:14-hc-02016-FL

    district
    (E.D.N.C.

    We deny Beys motion for bail pending appeal

    with
    are

    for

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like