Case Name: Mamadou Bailo DIALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Melanie PERREIRA, Director of Howard County Detention Center; Calvin McCormick, District Director of Homeland Security and Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Douglas Rippe, Supervisor of DHS/ BICE Field Detention of Baltimore, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-08
Citations: 266 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 07-7030
Parties: Mamadou Bailo DIALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Melanie PERREIRA, Director of Howard County Detention Center; Calvin McCormick, District Director of Homeland Security and Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Douglas Rippe, Supervisor of DHS/ BICE Field Detention of Baltimore, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
Mamadou Bailo DIALLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Melanie PERREIRA, Director of Howard County Detention Center; Calvin McCormick, District Director of Homeland Security and Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Douglas Rippe, Supervisor of DHS/ BICE Field Detention of Baltimore, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-7030.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 19, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 8, 2008.
Mamadou Bailo Diallo, Appellant Pro Se. George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mamadou Bailo Diallo appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Diallo v. Perreira, No. 8:07-cv-00348-AW (D. Md. June 29, 2007). 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.