Filed: Dec. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7332 NELSON RIVAS ALVAREZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00056-IMK-JES) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nelson Rivas Alvarez, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7332 NELSON RIVAS ALVAREZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00056-IMK-JES) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nelson Rivas Alvarez, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7332
NELSON RIVAS ALVAREZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERRY O’BRIEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00056-IMK-JES)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nelson Rivas Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Federal prisoner, Nelson Rivas Alvarez, 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. 2013) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. Alvarez v. O’Brien, No. 1:12-cv-
00056-IMK-JES (N.D.W. Va. July 22, 2013). 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