Filed: Jul. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6171 RAYMOND SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LISA HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv- 03226-AMD) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6171 RAYMOND SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LISA HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv- 03226-AMD) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Sm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6171 RAYMOND SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LISA HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv- 03226-AMD) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Hollingsworth, No. 1:05-cv-03226-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 19, 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 -
