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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-7533 Doc: 16 Filed: 04/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7533 ALMAZ NEZIROVIC, Petitioner – Appellant, v. GERALD S. HOLT, United States Marshal, Western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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?