Filed: Oct. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7107 RICKY LEE ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-670-2-23) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7107 RICKY LEE ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-670-2-23) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7107 RICKY LEE ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; DAN L. DOVE, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-670-2-23) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 17, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Anderson appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. United States, No. CA-02-670-2-23 (D.S.C. June 21, 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
