Filed: Feb. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7732 KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E.K. CAULEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00088) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7732 KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. E.K. CAULEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00088) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7732
KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
E.K. CAULEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00088)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kareem Jamal Currence, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Jamal Currence, 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
(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order.
Currence v. Cauley, No. 1:11-cv-00088 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 15,
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