In re Izac

Fourth Circuit

In re Izac

582 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 26, 2014

DocketNo. 14-6640

StatusPublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 224 (In re Izac) 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 Izac, 582 F. App'x 224 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles D. Izac filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of his sentence imposed in May 2006 and arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the trial and that he is actually innocent. This court ordinarily declines to entertain an original habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from this general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the matter to the appropriate district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012); Fed. R.App. P. 22(a).

Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the petition. We also deny Izac’s motion for appointment of counsel and for transcripts at government expense. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Charles D. Izac filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of his sentence imposed in May 2006 and arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the trial and that he is actually innocent. This court ordinarily declines to entertain an original habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from this general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the matter to the appropriate district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012); Fed. R.App. P. 22(a).

Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the petition. We also deny Izac’s motion for appointment of counsel and for transcripts at government expense. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-izac-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack