Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8087 MTU AKILI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. C. ZYCH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:12-cv-00456-MFU-RSB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mtu Akili, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8087 MTU AKILI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. C. ZYCH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:12-cv-00456-MFU-RSB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mtu Akili, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8087 MTU AKILI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. C. ZYCH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:12-cv-00456-MFU-RSB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mtu Akili, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mtu Akili, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Akili V. Zych, No. 7:12-cv-00456-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2012; Nov. 27, 2012) We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
