Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. US Parole Comm, 03-6797 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6797 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6797 MELVIN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; JOHNNY HUGHES; SEWALL SMITH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-03- 278-MJG) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6797 MELVIN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; JOHNNY HUGHES; SEWALL SMITH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-03- 278-MJG) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Marr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Melvin Williams, 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. United States Parole Comm’n, No. CA-03-278- MJG (D. Md. entered Apr. 22, 2003; filed Apr. 25, 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer