Filed: May 29, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7181 JIMMY LEE NIXON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Federal Prison Camp Butner; United States of America, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-48-5-BO) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7181 JIMMY LEE NIXON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Federal Prison Camp Butner; United States of America, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-48-5-BO) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7181 JIMMY LEE NIXON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Federal Prison Camp Butner; United States of America, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-48-5-BO) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lee Nixon, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Nixon, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nixon v. Dewalt, No. CA-02-48-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 24, 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
