Case Name: Mamadou Bailo DIALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mory Karamoko KABA, Mr., Consul for the embassy of the Republic of Guinea; Aly Kamara, Mr., Director of Operations of the embassy; Madame Paul, Ms., Personal Assistant of the Consul, Respondents- Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-19
Citations: 332 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 09-6410
Parties: Mamadou Bailo DIALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mory Karamoko KABA, Mr., Consul for the embassy of the Republic of Guinea; Aly Kamara, Mr., Director of Operations of the embassy; Madame Paul, Ms., Personal Assistant of the Consul, Respondents- Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
Mamadou Bailo DIALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mory Karamoko KABA, Mr., Consul for the embassy of the Republic of Guinea; Aly Kamara, Mr., Director of Operations of the embassy; Madame Paul, Ms., Personal Assistant of the Consul, Respondents- Appellees.
No. 09-6410.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 19, 2009.
Mamadou Bailo Diallo, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are'not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mamadou B. Diallo appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (2006) (providing that "[njotwithstanding any other provision of law ., including section 2241 of title 28, . a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this Act"). We deny the pending motion for a transcript at government expense. 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.