Filed: May 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6438 MARK PITT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-591-5-H) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Pitt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6438 MARK PITT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-591-5-H) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Pitt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6438 MARK PITT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-591-5-H) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Pitt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark Pitt, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and two subsequent motions to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Pitt’s motion to file a formal brief, we affirm on the ground that Pitt’s petition is properly characterized as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 -
