Filed: May 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6320 NAPOLEON GOODSON, IV, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. V. SMITH, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-2488-0) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6320 NAPOLEON GOODSON, IV, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. V. SMITH, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-2488-0) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6320 NAPOLEON GOODSON, IV, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. V. SMITH, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-2488-0) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Napoleon Goodson, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Napoleon Goodson, IV, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Goodson v. Smith, No. CA- 02-2488-0 (D.S.C. Dec. 26, 2002 and Jan. 31, 2003). 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
