Filed: Jan. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7701 SIERRAS DESHAWN COBB, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-364; CA-04-674-1) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sierras
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7701 SIERRAS DESHAWN COBB, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-364; CA-04-674-1) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sierras D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7701 SIERRAS DESHAWN COBB, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-364; CA-04-674-1) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sierras Deshawn Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sierras Deshawn Cobb, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the order of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his motion seeking the award of jail credits, which the district court construed as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cobb v. United States, Nos. CR-00-364; CA-04-674-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2004). 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 -
