Filed: May 26, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6006 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-02295-AW) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6006 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-02295-AW) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6006 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cv-02295-AW) Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Miles appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miles v. Maryland Parole Comm’n, No. 8:08-cv-02295-AW (D. Md. filed Dec. 17, 2008; entered Dec. 18, 2008). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel and for injunctive relief 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
