In re: Charles Izac

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999351113-2]; denying Motion to appoint counsel [999342962-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999342962-3]; denying Motion for extraordinary writ under FRAP 21 [999342961-2] Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JSK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999423006]. Mailed to: Charles Izac. [14-6640]

Appeal: 14-6640

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6640

In re:

CHARLES D. IZAC,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.
(3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles D. Izac, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6640

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

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.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DISMISSED

2