Filed: Apr. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6239 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-90) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6239 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-90) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6239 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-90) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raphael Mendez appeals a district court order and judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mendez v. United States, CA-04-90 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2005). 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 -
