Filed: Mar. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8435 JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03179) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8435 JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03179) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8435 JAMES HARRISON SINGLETARY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03179) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Harrison Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Harrison Singletary, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Singletary v. United States, No. 0:08- cv-03179 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 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
