Filed: Oct. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7358 ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent – Appellee, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu) Submitted: October 5, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7358 ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent – Appellee, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu) Submitted: October 5, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7358 ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent – Appellee, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu) Submitted: October 5, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Cornell Sanders appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition.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 Sanders v. O’Brien, No. 7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. June 30, 2009). We deny as moot Sanders’ motions to expedite the appeal. 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 3