Filed: Mar. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7819 GEORGE ANTHONY DEMPSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH V. SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2890) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7819 GEORGE ANTHONY DEMPSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH V. SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2890) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7819 GEORGE ANTHONY DEMPSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH V. SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2890) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Anthony Dempsey, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Anthony Dempsey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dempsey v. Smith, No. CA-03-2890 (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 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 -
