Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

People Of The US v. Huppenthal, 01-6980 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6980 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6980 RODNEY EUGENE SMITH, Secured Party, Petitioner - Appellant, and PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, ex rel; RAYMOND LEWIS O’FANNIN, next best friend in the matter of, Petitioners, versus MR. HUPPENTHAL, as sheriff/jailer of Southern Regional Jail; DAVID A. FABER, doing business as judge of the United States District Court, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6980 RODNEY EUGENE SMITH, Secured Party, Petitioner - Appellant, and PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, ex rel; RAYMOND LEWIS O’FANNIN, next best friend in the matter of, Petitioners, versus MR. HUPPENTHAL, as sheriff/jailer of Southern Regional Jail; DAVID A. FABER, doing business as judge of the United States District Court, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-239-1) Submitted: November 21, 2001 Decided: December 14, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Eugene Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney Eugene Smith 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 People of the United States v. Huppenthal, No. CA-01- 239-1 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 26, 2001). We deny Smith’s motion for im- mediate hearing. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer