Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Pelkey, 98-7461 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7461 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7461 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR PETER PELKEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-160-A) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7461 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR PETER PELKEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-160-A) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Peter Pelkey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Higgins McQuillan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Peter Pelkey appeals a district court’s marginal order denying his motion for release to home confinement. We have re- viewed the record and find that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Because Pelkey was not eligible for release to home confinement until December 1, 1998, months after he filed his motion, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(c) (West Supp. 1998), and he did not exhaust the necessary administrative remedies, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (1998), Pelkey was not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Pelkey’s motion. 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
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