Case Name: Helena FUTERYAN-COHEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; Warren A. Lewis, Deputy Director; Officer Burke, DD & P Unit, Respondents-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-15
Citations: 34 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 01-6907
Parties: Helena FUTERYAN-COHEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; Warren A. Lewis, Deputy Director; Officer Burke, DD & P Unit, Respondents-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 143–143

Head Matter:
Helena FUTERYAN-COHEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; Warren A. Lewis, Deputy Director; Officer Burke, DD & P Unit, Respondents-Appellants.
No. 01-6907.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 2002.
Decided May 15, 2002.
Donald E. Keener, John Clifford Cunningham, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Helena Futeryan-Cohen, Appellee Pro Se.
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) appeals the district court's order granting habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) to Petitioner Helena Futeryan-Cohen in the form of a stay of deportation. A citizen of Israel, Futeryan-Cohen is subject to a 1995 deportation order.
The INS contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(g) (West 1999). Upon our review, we find that this contention is correct and that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Futeryan-Cohen's habeas petition. Id.; Mapoy v. Carroll, 185 F.3d 224, 228-31 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1018, 120 S.Ct. 1417, 146 L.Ed.2d 310 (2000); see Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999).
We accordingly vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.