Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7513 JAMIE RAY EVERETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus M. E. RAY, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1882-13D) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7513 JAMIE RAY EVERETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus M. E. RAY, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1882-13D) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7513 JAMIE RAY EVERETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus M. E. RAY, Warden; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1882-13D) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Ray Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jamie Ray Everett appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of the appeal fee. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Everett v. Ray, No. CA-99-1882-13D (D.S.C. Oct. 4, 2000). We dis- pense 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
