Filed: Sep. 01, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7011 JAMES ROBERT RICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (4:05-cv-03078-PMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Robert Rice, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7011 JAMES ROBERT RICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (4:05-cv-03078-PMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Robert Rice, Appellant Pro S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7011 JAMES ROBERT RICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (4:05-cv-03078-PMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Robert Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Robert Rice, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rice v. LaManna, No. 4:05-cv-03078-PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2006). 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 -
