Filed: May 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7924 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, MCI-H, Hagerstown, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1219-AW) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7924 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, MCI-H, Hagerstown, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1219-AW) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7924 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, MCI-H, Hagerstown, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1219-AW) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Miles appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED - 2 -
