Filed: May 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7405 WILLIAM JAMES JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-342-5-H) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7405 WILLIAM JAMES JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-342-5-H) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7405 WILLIAM JAMES JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-342-5-H) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William James Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William James Jones, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) because the motion should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Stansberry, No. CA- 05-342-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2005). We deny Jones’ motion to file a formal brief and 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 -
