Case Name: Carl A. EUBANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; B.G. Compton, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-24
Citations: 131 F. App'x 948
Docket Number: No. 04-7199
Parties: Carl A. EUBANKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; B.G. Compton, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 948–948

Head Matter:
Carl A. EUBANKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; B.G. Compton, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7199.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2005.
Decided May 24, 2005.
Carl A. Eubanks, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carl A. Eubanks appeals a district court order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum opinion and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Eubanks v. United States, No. CA-04-307 (W.D.Va. filed June 17, 2004; entered June 18, 2004). 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
To the extent that Eubanks may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion on the basis of the rules announced in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), we deny authorization.