Filed: Feb. 07, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7802 BERNARD BARNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN BLEDSOE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-616-7) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7802 BERNARD BARNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN BLEDSOE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-616-7) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Ba..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7802 BERNARD BARNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN BLEDSOE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-616-7) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Barnett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bernard Barnett, 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 Barnett v. Bledsoe, No. CA-03-616-7 (W.D. Va. filed Oct. 20, 2004 & entered Oct. 21, 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 -
