Filed: Feb. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7569 SAMUEL WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1401-5) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Wright, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7569 SAMUEL WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1401-5) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Wright, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7569 SAMUEL WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TROY WILLIAMSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1401-5) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel Wright, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Wright v. Williamson, No. CA-02-1401-5 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
