Filed: Apr. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7155 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN SPENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RUTH YANCEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:05-cv-03478-HFF) Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 10, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Steven Spence,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7155 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN SPENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RUTH YANCEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:05-cv-03478-HFF) Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 10, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Steven Spence, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7155 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN SPENCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RUTH YANCEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:05-cv-03478-HFF) Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 10, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Steven Spence, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Steven Spence, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spence v. Yancey, No. 6:05-cv-03478-HFF (D.S.C. June 14, 2006). 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 -
