Filed: Jun. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8581 WILLIAM D. ZACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CA-94-178) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8581 WILLIAM D. ZACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CA-94-178) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D. Z..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8581 WILLIAM D. ZACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge. (CA-94-178) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D. Zack, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his motion for reconsideration. 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. Zack v. FCI Morgantown, No. CA-94-178 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
