Filed: Aug. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6639 ORRANDY GOODWYN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, Low Security Correctional Institution- Butner, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-63-5-HO) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6639 ORRANDY GOODWYN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, Low Security Correctional Institution- Butner, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-63-5-HO) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6639 ORRANDY GOODWYN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, Low Security Correctional Institution- Butner, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-63-5-HO) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orrandy Goodwyn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Orrandy Goodwyn seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). 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 Goodwyn v. United States, No. CA-02-63-5-HO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2002). 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
