Court Opinion

ID: 9390150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:18.897747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.393149
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7409      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7409

        RAAJ RAFA EL, a/k/a Roger Moore, a/k/a Raaj Rafael,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WAYNE WRIGHT, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01824-LKG)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raaj Rafa El, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7409         Doc: 13       Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Raaj Rafa El, a former state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s

        order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. * Since the district court denied relief

        on Rafa El’s petition, however, he pleaded guilty to the state burglary charge and was

        sentenced. Because Rafa El is no longer in custody, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See

        Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015).

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                         DISMISSED

               *
                  Although Rafa El noted his appeal after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period
        in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), we conclude that we have jurisdiction over his appeal
        because the district court’s order explaining its reasons for dismissal was not accompanied
        by a separate document setting forth the court’s judgment, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
        58(a). See Hughes v. Halifax Cty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987). Thus, the
        district court’s order was deemed entered, for purposes of Rule 4(a), 150 days after the date
        of entry on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii).

                                                      2