Filed: Jul. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6433 CLIVERT LINDSAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-01-586-WMN) Submitted: July 3, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clivert Lindsay, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6433 CLIVERT LINDSAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-01-586-WMN) Submitted: July 3, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clivert Lindsay, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6433 CLIVERT LINDSAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-01-586-WMN) Submitted: July 3, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clivert Lindsay, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying 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 Lindsay v. Gunja, No. CA-01-586-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument 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
