Filed: Dec. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7332 JOEL CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-1864-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Christoph
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7332 JOEL CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-1864-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Christophe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7332 JOEL CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-1864-JFM) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel Christopher Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joel Christopher Wilson appeals from 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 deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Attorney General, No. CA-01-1864-JFM (D. Md. July 9, 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. DISMISSED 2
