Filed: Jan. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7356 JOHN GRADY MORRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; JOHN T. HADDEN, Warden, Federal Correctional Insti- tution, Butner, North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-313-5-HC-F) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7356 JOHN GRADY MORRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; JOHN T. HADDEN, Warden, Federal Correctional Insti- tution, Butner, North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-313-5-HC-F) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chie..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7356
JOHN GRADY MORRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; JOHN T.
HADDEN, Warden, Federal Correctional Insti-
tution, Butner, North Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-95-313-5-HC-F)
Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Grady Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Janice McKenzie Cole, United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 (1988) petition. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Morris v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. CA-95-313-5-HC-F
(E.D.N.C. July 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2