Filed: Aug. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6357 ALBERT A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ELAINE CHAPMAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02143-H) Submitted: August 6, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6357 ALBERT A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ELAINE CHAPMAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02143-H) Submitted: August 6, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6357 ALBERT A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ELAINE CHAPMAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02143-H) Submitted: August 6, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert A. Williams, 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. See Williams v. Chapman, No. 5:07-hc-02143-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 2008). 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 -
