Case ID: f-appx_64/html/0901-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PICHARDO, a/k/a Jose, a/k/a Eddy Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-6370.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 20, 2003.
    Decided June 11, 2003.
    Jose Pichardo, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jose Pichardo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, which it construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Pichardo’s petition sought a declaratory judgment permanently enjoining the United States from seeking his deportation, or, at the least, his deportation to the Dominican Republic. Because Pichardo does not challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence, the district court improperly construed Pichardo’s petition as a § 2255 motion. See In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir.1997). Thus, no certificate of appealability is required to appeal the district court’s order and the standards therefor are inapplicable to this case. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Furthermore, Pichardo sought relief under § 2241 because the sentencing order for his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) did not memorialize any agreement by the Government not to deport him. Indeed, the district court would have had no jurisdiction in Pichardo’s criminal proceeding to enjoin his deportation in the future. Because neither the Attorney General nor the INS has ordered Pichardo’s departure, his petition must be and is denied without prejudice as premature. We express no opinion as to whether the Government has failed to fulfill any agreement not to have Pichardo deported. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denying relief on that alternate ground. 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.