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)
25-6635•Julie Ann Woodel v. LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Adult Correction
25-6635Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 10, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6635
JULIE ANN WOODEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Adult
Correction,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:25-cv-00003-MR)
Submitted: October 2, 2025 Decided: October 10, 2025
Before AGEE, WYNN, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julie Ann Woodel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Julie Ann Woodel, a former North Carolina pretrial detainee, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as moot. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that Woodel’s
release from custody mooted her petition. Accordingly, we deny Woodel’s motion for a
stay and to remand. We further affirm the district court’s judgment. Woodel v. Dismukes,
No. 5:25-cv-00003-MR (W.D.N.C. July 23, 2025).* 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.
AFFIRMED
* Although a certificate of appealability generally is required to appeal “the final
order in a habeas corpus proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), we conclude that no
certificate of appealability is required here because the district court’s dismissal on
mootness grounds is unrelated to the merits of the § 2241 petition. See Harbison v. Bell,
556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.