Filed: Sep. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6687 CARLTON L. CHANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary Lee County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00121-jlk) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6687 CARLTON L. CHANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary Lee County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00121-jlk) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6687 CARLTON L. CHANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary Lee County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00121-jlk) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton L. Chaney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlton L. Chaney, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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. Chaney v. O’Brien, No. 7:07-cv-00121-jlk (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2007). 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 -
