Filed: Sep. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6699 PAUL M. OMAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-561) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Mar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6699 PAUL M. OMAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-561) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Mary..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6699 PAUL M. OMAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-561) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul M. Omar, a federal prisoner, appeals the magistrate judge’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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Omar v. Brooks, No. CA-02-561 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2003). 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 * The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2
