Filed: Aug. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7487 CARL BENIT COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-551-5-BO) Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7487 CARL BENIT COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-551-5-BO) Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7487
CARL BENIT COOPER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-551-5-BO)
Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Benit Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl Benit Cooper appeals a district court judgment
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s order and affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Cooper v. Beeler, No. CA-04-551-5-BO
(E.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2005). We also deny Cooper’s motion for summary
judgment. 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 -