Filed: Nov. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6983 CARL CAMPOS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, ESTILL, SC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00525-TMC) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6983 CARL CAMPOS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, ESTILL, SC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00525-TMC) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6983
CARL CAMPOS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, ESTILL, SC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(2:15-cv-00525-TMC)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Campos, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Campos, 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, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Campos v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., No. 2:15-
cv-00525-TMC (D.S.C. June 8, 2015). 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