Filed: Mar. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6232 RALPH STAINO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-hc-00962-FL) Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Stai
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6232 RALPH STAINO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-hc-00962-FL) Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Stain..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6232 RALPH STAINO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-hc-00962-FL) Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Staino, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ralph Staino, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Staino v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 5:04-hc-00962-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2005; Jan. 26, 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 -
