Filed: Sep. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6468 GERALD WAYNE TIMMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN HOLLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02113-BO) Submitted: August 16, 2019 Decided: September 11, 2019 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geral
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6468 GERALD WAYNE TIMMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN HOLLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02113-BO) Submitted: August 16, 2019 Decided: September 11, 2019 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6468
GERALD WAYNE TIMMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN HOLLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02113-BO)
Submitted: August 16, 2019 Decided: September 11, 2019
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Wayne Timms, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Wayne Timms, 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. Timms v. Holland, No. 5:17-hc-02113-
BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2019). 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