Filed: Apr. 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6369 ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent -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-00026-gec-mfu) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6369 ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent -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-00026-gec-mfu) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6369
ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,
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-00026-gec-mfu)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, a federal inmate, appeals
three district court orders filed as a result of post-judgment
motions in Sanders’ action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and
affirm those orders denying his second and third motions filed
under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the
reasoning of the district court. See Sanders v. O’Brien, No.
7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2010; Feb. 10, 2010).
Because Sanders does not need a certificate of appealability to
appeal the denial of an order issued in a § 2241 proceeding, we
dismiss the appeal from the district court’s order denying a
certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
2