Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Giuliano v. United States, 10-7625 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-7625 Visitors: 53
Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7625 IGNATZIO GIULIANO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:10-cv-02485-MBS) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7625


IGNATZIO GIULIANO,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN FCI WILLIAMSBURG,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (6:10-cv-02485-MBS)


Submitted:   February 28, 2011             Decided:   March 9, 2011


Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ignatzio Giuliano, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Ignatzio   Giuliano,   a       federal    prisoner,   appeals   the

district   court’s    order   accepting      the    recommendation   of    the

magistrate judge and 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.               Giuliano v. Warden, No.

6:10-cv-02485-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer