Filed: Sep. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6843 WILLIAM HAMILTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN SARA REVELL, Respondent - Appellee.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-02159-FL) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hamilton, Jr.,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6843 WILLIAM HAMILTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN SARA REVELL, Respondent - Appellee.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-02159-FL) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hamilton, Jr., A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6843 WILLIAM HAMILTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN SARA REVELL, Respondent - Appellee.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-02159-FL) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hamilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Hamilton, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition and his Rule 59 motion. 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. Hamilton v. Revel, No. 5:12-hc-02159-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2012; May 8, 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
