Filed: Feb. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7429 ROBERT JOHN MOES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden; DAVID A. HOLLER, Case Manager, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 2959-8-RWT) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7429 ROBERT JOHN MOES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden; DAVID A. HOLLER, Case Manager, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 2959-8-RWT) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7429 ROBERT JOHN MOES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden; DAVID A. HOLLER, Case Manager, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 2959-8-RWT) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert John Moes, Appellant Pro Se. James A. Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert John Moes, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Moes v. DeWalt, No. CA-04-2959-8-RWT (D. Md. filed Aug. 26, 2005 & entered Aug. 30, 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 -
