Filed: Feb. 22, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7591 FELIX ROCHE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-501) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7591 FELIX ROCHE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-501) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7591 FELIX ROCHE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-501) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felix Roche, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Felix Roche appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roche v. Bledsoe, No. CA-05-501 (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 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 -
