The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-6116•Ashley Terrell Brooks v. ERIC WILSON, Warden
18-6116Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 3, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6116
ASHLEY TERRELL BROOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC WILSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00857-REP-RCY)
Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: August 3, 2018
Before TRAXLER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, Joseph S. Camden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary
Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Ashley Terrell Brooks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice Brooks’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition in which Brooks
sought to challenge his armed career criminal designation. The district court determined
that Brooks was unable to challenge his sentence under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e) (2012). The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in
United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018). In light of Wheeler, we vacate the
district court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.