Filed: Dec. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7063 WAYNE P. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-265-3) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: December 19, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne P. Thomas, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7063 WAYNE P. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-265-3) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: December 19, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne P. Thomas, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7063 WAYNE P. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-265-3) Submitted: November 28, 2001 Decided: December 19, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne P. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wayne P. Thomas appeals from the district court’s order dis- missing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (1994) after construing it as a motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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. Thomas v. Brooks, No. CA-01-265-3 (E.D. Va. May 23, 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
