Filed: Nov. 26, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7054 ANTHONY BOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00289-GEC-MFU) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7054 ANTHONY BOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00289-GEC-MFU) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7054 ANTHONY BOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00289-GEC-MFU) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Boyd, 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boyd v. O’Brien, No. 7:08-cv-00289-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. filed May 13, 2008, entered May 14, 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
