Hood v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Hood v. United States

13 F. App'x 72

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 2001

Docket01-6151

StatusUnpublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 13 F. App'x 72 (Hood v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hood v. United States, 13 F. App'x 72 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Corey DeSean Hood appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in its conclusion that Hood has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See § 2255 115; Jeffers v. Chandler, 234 F.3d 277, 280 (5th Cir.2000). However, we modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice, in order to allow Hood to refile his petition at such time as he is able to make such a demonstration. 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 AS MODIFIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Corey DeSean Hood appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in its conclusion that Hood has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See § 2255 115; Jeffers v. Chandler, 234 F.3d 277, 280 (5th Cir.2000). However, we modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice, in order to allow Hood to refile his petition at such time as he is able to make such a demonstration. 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 AS MODIFIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. App'x 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-united-states-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack