Almaz Nezirovic v. Gerald Holt
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00428-MFU Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999562605]. Mailed to: Almaz Nezirovic. [14-7533]
Appeal: 14-7533
Doc: 16
Filed: 04/10/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7533
ALMAZ NEZIROVIC,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GERALD S. HOLT, United States Marshal, Western District of
Virginia;
BOBBY
D.
RUSSELL,
Superintendent,
Western
Virginia Regional Jail,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00428-MFU)
Submitted:
March 31, 2015
Decided:
April 10, 2015
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Almaz Nezirovic, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7533
Doc: 16
Filed: 04/10/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Almaz
Nezirovic
appeals
from
the
district
court’s
order
denying his motion for bond filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
proceeding.
In light of the district court’s denial of the 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition and our decision affirming the district
court’s order, see Nezirovic v. Holt, 779 F.3d 233, 2015 WL
777540
(4th
Cir.
Feb.
25,
2015)
(No.
14-6468),
Nezirovic’s
appeal of the order denying his motion for release on bond is
now moot.
2007)
See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 285-86 (4th Cir.
(setting
forth
the
principles
of
appellate
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
mootness).
We dispense with
contentions
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?