Filed: Nov. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6961 PAUL COLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, F.C.I. Butner; HARLEY G. LAPPIN (Reg. Dir.), Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-310-5-H) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6961 PAUL COLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, F.C.I. Butner; HARLEY G. LAPPIN (Reg. Dir.), Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-310-5-H) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6961 PAUL COLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, F.C.I. Butner; HARLEY G. LAPPIN (Reg. Dir.), Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-310-5-H) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Colson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul Colson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Colson v. Dewalt, No. CA-02-310-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 4, 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
