Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7274 DAWN DEMPSY SUTTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY L. WINKLER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-847-5-H) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Dempsey Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. R
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7274 DAWN DEMPSY SUTTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY L. WINKLER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-847-5-H) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Dempsey Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Ru..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7274 DAWN DEMPSY SUTTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY L. WINKLER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-847-5-H) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Dempsey Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dawn Dempsey Sutton, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sutton v. Winkler, No. CA-03-847-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 22 & June 30, 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 -
