Filed: May 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6432 PAUL B. GOIST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3021-20BD) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul B. Goist, Appellant Pro Se. Unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6432 PAUL B. GOIST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3021-20BD) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul B. Goist, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6432 PAUL B. GOIST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3021-20BD) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul B. Goist, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Paul B. Goist, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a 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 Goist v. Smith, No. CA-03- 3021-20BD (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 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 -
