Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wayne Vinson v. Warden FCI-II Butner, 18-6997 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-6997 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6997 WAYNE VINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FCI-II BUTNER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-hc-02123-FL) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 4, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayn
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 18-6997


WAYNE VINSON,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN FCI-II BUTNER,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-hc-02123-FL)


Submitted: November 29, 2018                                  Decided: December 4, 2018


Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wayne Vinson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Wayne Vinson, 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

deny Vinson’s motion for the appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Vinson v. Warden FCI-II Butner, No. 5:17-hc-02123-FL (E.D.N.C.

July 26, 2018). 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer