Filed: Aug. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6594 IVORY RONZELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden - FCI Butner II, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02164-FL) Submitted: August 8, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivory
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6594 IVORY RONZELL WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden - FCI Butner II, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02164-FL) Submitted: August 8, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivory R..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6594
IVORY RONZELL WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden - FCI Butner II,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02164-FL)
Submitted: August 8, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivory Ronzell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivory Ronzell Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Andrews, No.
5:15-hc-02164-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2016). 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