Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6529 BERNARD ALLEN MAYLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Warden, Federal Correctional Insti- tution, Morgantown, West Virginia, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-7-1) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ER
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6529 BERNARD ALLEN MAYLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Warden, Federal Correctional Insti- tution, Morgantown, West Virginia, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-7-1) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERV..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6529 BERNARD ALLEN MAYLES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Warden, Federal Correctional Insti- tution, Morgantown, West Virginia, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-7-1) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 10, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Allen Mayles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (1994) 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. Mayles v. United States, No. CA-96-7-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 16, 1996). 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 2
