Filed: Aug. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6697 ORANIE GALINDO FORBES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-30-7-24BG) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oranie Galindo Forbes
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6697 ORANIE GALINDO FORBES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-30-7-24BG) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oranie Galindo Forbes,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6697
ORANIE GALINDO FORBES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAN L. DOVE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-01-30-7-24BG)
Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oranie Galindo Forbes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Oranie Galindo Forbes appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) 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 Forbes v. Dove, CA-01-30-7-24BG (D.S.C. Apr.
11, 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