Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Miller v. Air Force Clemency and Parole, 11-7523 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-7523 Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7523 JAMES L. MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD, Respondent – Appellee, and ANTHONY SANGIACOMO, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Defendant, JOSEPH GIACOBBE, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-02621-JFM) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7523 JAMES L. MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD, Respondent – Appellee, and ANTHONY SANGIACOMO, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Defendant, JOSEPH GIACOBBE, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-02621-JFM) Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James L. Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the court’s rejection of Miller’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Because Miller fails to challenge in his informal brief the court’s disposition of his remaining claims, he has forfeited appellate review of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (confining review to issues raised in appellant’s brief). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. Air Force Clemency & Parole Bd., No. 1:10-cv-02621-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 20, 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 3
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