Filed: Apr. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7685 JASON ZAWADZKI, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00114-gec-mfu) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Zawadzki, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7685 JASON ZAWADZKI, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00114-gec-mfu) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Zawadzki, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7685
JASON ZAWADZKI,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TERRY O’BRIEN,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:09-cv-00114-gec-mfu)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Zawadzki, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Zawadzki, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006)
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Zawadzki v. O’Brien,
No. 7:09-cv-00114-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Aug. 20, 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