Filed: Dec. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7554 KEVIN JEROME FUELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-592-5-BO) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7554 KEVIN JEROME FUELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-592-5-BO) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7554 KEVIN JEROME FUELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-592-5-BO) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Jerome Fuell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kevin Jerome Fuell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Fuell v. United States, No. CA-00-592-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 20 & Oct. 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
