Filed: Jul. 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6364 JAMES DONALD HATTEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, F.C.I. Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-3545-WDQ) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Donald
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6364 JAMES DONALD HATTEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, F.C.I. Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-3545-WDQ) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Donald H..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6364 JAMES DONALD HATTEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden, F.C.I. Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-3545-WDQ) Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Donald Hatten, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Donald Hatten, 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Hatten v. DeWalt, No. CA-04-3545-WDQ (D. Md. filed Feb. 28, 2005 & entered Mar. 1, 2005). 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 -
