Filed: Jul. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6527 JAMES E. CLIFTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1993-AM) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6527 JAMES E. CLIFTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1993-AM) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6527 JAMES E. CLIFTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1993-AM) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Clifton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 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. Clifton v. United States Parole Comm’n, No. CA-97- 1993-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 1998). 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