Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7965 KARENAZO MILLER, a/k/a Deshaun Bostic, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; A. F. BEELER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-715-H) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7965 KARENAZO MILLER, a/k/a Deshaun Bostic, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; A. F. BEELER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-715-H) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. K..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7965 KARENAZO MILLER, a/k/a Deshaun Bostic, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; A. F. BEELER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-715-H) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karenazo Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Karenazo Miller appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. United States, No. CA-04-715-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 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 -
