Filed: Mar. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7770 DREW BRINSON, a/k/a Drew H. Brinson, a/k/a Drew Howard Brinson, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN M. RIVERA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:12-cv-02075-DCN) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7770 DREW BRINSON, a/k/a Drew H. Brinson, a/k/a Drew Howard Brinson, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN M. RIVERA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:12-cv-02075-DCN) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7770 DREW BRINSON, a/k/a Drew H. Brinson, a/k/a Drew Howard Brinson, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN M. RIVERA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:12-cv-02075-DCN) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Drew Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Drew Brinson, 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.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brinson v. Rivera, No. 6:12-cv-02075-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2012). 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
