Filed: Aug. 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6517 MARVIN LEWIS CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distric of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-998-BO) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Lewis Carter
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6517 MARVIN LEWIS CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distric of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-998-BO) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Lewis Carter,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6517 MARVIN LEWIS CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distric of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-998-BO) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin Lewis Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marvin Lewis Carter, 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 Carter v. Stansberry, No. CA-04-998-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 8, 2005 & entered Mar. 16, 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 -
