Filed: Jul. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6251 DWAYNE ORALLIS SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-749-5BR) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Orallis Smi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6251 DWAYNE ORALLIS SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-749-5BR) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Orallis Smit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6251 DWAYNE ORALLIS SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-749-5BR) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Orallis Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dwayne Orallis Smith appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. United States, No. CA-99-749-5BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
