Filed: May 25, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6069 RANDY L. THORNTON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent –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. (5:10-hc-02023-D) Submitted: May 16, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ra
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6069 RANDY L. THORNTON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent –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. (5:10-hc-02023-D) Submitted: May 16, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ran..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6069
RANDY L. THORNTON,
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. (5:10-hc-02023-D)
Submitted: May 16, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy L. Thornton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thornton, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition and has moved for appointment
of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny Thornton’s motion for appointment
of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Thornton v. United States, No. 5:10-hc-02023-D
(E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2011). 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