Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6649 WILLIAM BURRELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2829-AMD) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Gardiner, Fairf
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6649 WILLIAM BURRELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2829-AMD) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfa..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6649 WILLIAM BURRELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2829-AMD) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Burrell Smith appeals the district court’s order granting the Parole Commission’s motion to dismiss his compliant in which he sought an order compelling certification that his 1954 criminal conviction had been set aside or an order of expungement. 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 Smith v. United States Parole Commission, No. CA-01-2829-AMD (D. Md. Mar. 14, 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