Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6702 KEDRON KITCHENS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN SARA REVELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02187-FL) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6702 KEDRON KITCHENS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN SARA REVELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02187-FL) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6702 KEDRON KITCHENS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN SARA REVELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02187-FL) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kedron Kitchens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kedron Kitchens, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kitchens v. Revell, No. 5:12-hc-02187-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
