Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Satterwhite v. United States, 00-7002 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7002 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7002 WILLIAM LAWRENCE SATTERWHITE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-860-3) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lawr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7002 WILLIAM LAWRENCE SATTERWHITE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-860-3) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lawrence Satterwhite, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Lawrence Satterwhite, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) pe- tition.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Satterwhite v. United States, No. CA-99-860- 3 (E.D. Va. July 10, 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. DISMISSED * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer