Filed: May 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6528 ADOLPHE MOUNKASSA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-65-5-BR-(2)) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6528 ADOLPHE MOUNKASSA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-65-5-BR-(2)) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6528 ADOLPHE MOUNKASSA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-65-5-BR-(2)) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adolphe Mounkassa, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Adolphe Mounkassa 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 Mounkassa v. United States, No. CA-01-65-5-BR (E.D.N.C. March 12, 2001). 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
