Filed: Dec. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7547 CARLTON BUCKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-04-22895-4) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7547 CARLTON BUCKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-04-22895-4) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlt..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7547 CARLTON BUCKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-04-22895-4) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Buckley, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carlton Buckley, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Buckley v. Lamanna, No. CA-04-22895-4 (D.S.C. Sept. 21, 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 -
