In re Corcino

Fourth Circuit

In re Corcino

464 F. App'x 153

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 2012

DocketNo. 11-1863

StatusPublished

This text of 464 F. App'x 153 (In re Corcino) 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

In re Corcino, 464 F. App'x 153 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Melania Corcino petitions for a writ of prohibition seeking an order to stop the [154]*154enforcement of a detainer lodged against her by immigration authorities following the completion of her federal sentence. We conclude that Corcino is not entitled to relief.

The writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983). Further, prohibition relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Id. We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Corcino has not made the requisite showing for issuance of the writ. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of prohibition. We further deny Corcino’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

PETITION DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Melania Corcino petitions for a writ of prohibition seeking an order to stop the [154]*154enforcement of a detainer lodged against her by immigration authorities following the completion of her federal sentence. We conclude that Corcino is not entitled to relief.

The writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983). Further, prohibition relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Id. We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Corcino has not made the requisite showing for issuance of the writ. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of prohibition. We further deny Corcino’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 F. App'x 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-corcino-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack