Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6012 ANTHONY ALEXANDER PITTMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-00-762-FO-5) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6012 ANTHONY ALEXANDER PITTMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-00-762-FO-5) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6012 ANTHONY ALEXANDER PITTMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-00-762-FO-5) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Alexander Pittman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Alexander Pittman 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. Pittman v. United States Dist. Court, No. CA-00- 762-FO-5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 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
