Filed: Jan. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8066 KEITH G. COLEMAN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. MILDRED RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (9:09-cv-00805-RBH) Submitted: January 12, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith G. Coleman, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8066 KEITH G. COLEMAN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. MILDRED RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (9:09-cv-00805-RBH) Submitted: January 12, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith G. Coleman, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8066
KEITH G. COLEMAN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MILDRED RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(9:09-cv-00805-RBH)
Submitted: January 12, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith G. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith G. Coleman, 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. Coleman v. Rivera, No.
9:09-cv-00805-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2009). We deny the motion
for appointment of counsel and 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