Filed: Nov. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6969 DAVID YI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-385-3) Submitted: October 29, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Yi, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6969 DAVID YI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-385-3) Submitted: October 29, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Yi, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6969 DAVID YI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-385-3) Submitted: October 29, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Yi, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Yi appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Yi v. Brooks, No. CA-03-385-3 (E.D. Va. filed June 10, 2003 & entered June 11, 2003). We deny Yi’s motion for 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
