Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7018 WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 04-1550-JFM) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7018 WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 04-1550-JFM) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingra..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7018 WALTER LOUIS INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA- 04-1550-JFM) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter Louis Ingram, 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 Ingram v. Ashcroft, No. CA-04-1550-JFM (D. Md. filed May 21, 2004 & entered June 8, 2004). 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 -
