Filed: Apr. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7713 JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-777) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Johnson, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7713 JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-777) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Johnson, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7713 JOHN HENRY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-00-777) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying re- lief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Brooks, No. CA-00-777 (E.D. Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 22, 2000). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
