Case Name: Louis Carl JEMISON, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS; Alberto Gonzales; Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-25
Citations: 285 F. App'x 68
Docket Number: No. 08-6655
Parties: Louis Carl JEMISON, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS; Alberto Gonzales; Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 68–69

Head Matter:
Louis Carl JEMISON, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. MARSHALS; Alberto Gonzales; Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-6655.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2008.
Decided: July 25, 2008.
Louis Carol Jemison, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Louis Carl Jemison, III, appeals the district court order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court memorandum order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Jemison v. U.S. Marshals, No. 3:07-cv-00403-HEH (E.D.Va. Feb. 20, 2008). We deny Jemison's motion for 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.