Filed: Oct. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6455 WARSHAHENNEDIGE ANTON RAJ NISHANTHA FERNANDO, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:09-hc-02018-D) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6455 WARSHAHENNEDIGE ANTON RAJ NISHANTHA FERNANDO, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:09-hc-02018-D) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6455
WARSHAHENNEDIGE ANTON RAJ NISHANTHA FERNANDO,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02018-D)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando, a
federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010)
petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Fernando v. United States, No. 5:09-hc-02018-D
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2010). 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