Filed: Nov. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7187 DAVID KARL DANSER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN STANSBERRY, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00271-JBF-TEM) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Karl Danser, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7187 DAVID KARL DANSER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN STANSBERRY, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00271-JBF-TEM) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Karl Danser, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7187 DAVID KARL DANSER, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN STANSBERRY, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00271-JBF-TEM) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Karl Danser, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Karl Danser, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his previously dismissed 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Danser v. Stansberry, No. 2:07-cv-00271-JBF-TEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2009). 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
