Filed: Aug. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6235 MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-12-3-P, CR-87-19-C) Submitted: July 20, 1999 Decided: August 5, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6235 MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-12-3-P, CR-87-19-C) Submitted: July 20, 1999 Decided: August 5, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6235 MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-12-3-P, CR-87-19-C) Submitted: July 20, 1999 Decided: August 5, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Aaron Little appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). 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. See Little v. United States, No. CA-99-12-3-P (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 1999). 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
