Filed: Oct. 21, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7095 CHAD S. FISHER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent – Appellee.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-00569-GEC-MFU) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chad S. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Lin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7095 CHAD S. FISHER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent – Appellee.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-00569-GEC-MFU) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chad S. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7095 CHAD S. FISHER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent – Appellee.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-00569-GEC-MFU) Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chad S. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chad S. Fisher, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 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. See Fisher v. O’Brien, No. 7:08-cv- 00569-GEC-MFU (W.D. Va. May 15, 2009). 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
