Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6120 RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-412) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Jerome Francis, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6120 RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-412) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Jerome Francis, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6120
RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-03-412)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Jerome Francis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Jerome Francis, 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 Francis v. Brooks, No. CA-03-412 (E.D. Va.
filed Dec. 5, 2003 & entered Dec. 8, 2003); see also San-Miguel v.
Dove,
291 F.3d 257 (4th Cir.) (holding that rule announced in
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), does not apply
retroactively to cases on collateral review regardless of whether
action is filed under § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)), cert.
denied,
537 U.S. 938 (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 -