Filed: Jul. 24, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6343 ANTHONY RAY FLEMING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; J. R. JAMES, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution But- ner, Satellite Camp, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-827-5-F) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6343 ANTHONY RAY FLEMING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; J. R. JAMES, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution But- ner, Satellite Camp, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-827-5-F) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6343 ANTHONY RAY FLEMING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; J. R. JAMES, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution But- ner, Satellite Camp, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-827-5-F) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Ray Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Ray Fleming appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 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. See Fleming v. United States, No. CA-99-827-5-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2000). 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
