Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES ARNOLD GUNNINGS, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00014-1) Submitted: May 20, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Arnold Gunnings,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES ARNOLD GUNNINGS, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00014-1) Submitted: May 20, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Arnold Gunnings, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES ARNOLD GUNNINGS, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00014-1) Submitted: May 20, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Arnold Gunnings, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Arnold Gunnings, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for relief from the decision of the Bureau of Prisons to deny him nunc pro tunc designation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Gunnings, No. 5:04-cr-00014-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2011). 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
