Filed: Nov. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7185 MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-820-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7185 MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-820-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7185 MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 01-820-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Aaron Little appeals the district court’s order deny- ing relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Little v. Gunja, No. CA-01-820-JFM (D. Md. July 11, 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
