Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barry Earl Williams v. United States Parole Commission John Hahn, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, 95-7148 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7148 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 12, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 72 F.3d 128 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Barry Earl WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; John Hahn, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-7148. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
More

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Barry Earl WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; John Hahn, Warden, Federal
Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7148.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-94-807)

Barry Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Williams v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. CA-94-807 (E.D. Va. June 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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