Filed: Oct. 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6695 CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. SARAH REVELL; ERIC HOLDER, Respondents - Appellees. 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-02091-D) Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Char
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6695 CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. SARAH REVELL; ERIC HOLDER, Respondents - Appellees. 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-02091-D) Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6695
CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SARAH REVELL; ERIC HOLDER,
Respondents - Appellees.
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-02091-D)
Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., a federal pre-trial
detainee, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition and the
order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Barefoot v.
Revell, No. 5:09-hc-02091-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2010; Apr. 5,
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