Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fleming v. Olson, 02-6307 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6307 Visitors: 35
Filed: Jun. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6307 DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH E. OLSON, Warden, F.C.I. Beckley, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-660-5) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Marquis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6307 DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KEITH E. OLSON, Warden, F.C.I. Beckley, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-660-5) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Derek Marquis Fleming appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), to vacate the court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Fleming v. Olson, No. CA-97-660-5 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 4, 2002; Jan. 28, 2002). 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
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