US v. Jose Mora, No. 13-6159 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE JESUS MORA, a/k/a Jose Mora, Nuesslein, a/k/a Jose Jesus Neusslein, a/k/a Jose Jesus Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00062-RAJ-JEB-1) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Jesus Mora, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Stephen Westley Haynie, Norfolk, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Jesus Mora appeals the district court s orders denying his most recent motions seeking modification of the conditions of his supervised release and has filed a self-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court. Mora has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and asks that he be appointed counsel. court record although we and grant find no Mora s We have reviewed the district reversible application error. to Accordingly, proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his request for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court s orders. No. 2:07-cr-00062-RAJ-JEB-1 (E.D. See United States v. Mora, Va. filed Jan. 7, 2013, entered Jan. 8, 2013; filed Jan. 7, 2013, entered May 13, 2013; Jan. 30, 2013). In addition, this court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the case to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.