Filed: Dec. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7295 JOHN HARRY GRAJALES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent -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-01-1673-WMN) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Harry Grajales, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7295 JOHN HARRY GRAJALES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent -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-01-1673-WMN) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Harry Grajales, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7295 JOHN HARRY GRAJALES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent -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-01-1673-WMN) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Harry Grajales, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Harry Grajales appeals the district court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). 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 Grajales v. Gunja, No. CA-01-1673-WMN (D. Md. July 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
