Filed: Jan. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7129 EARL WEBSTER COX, Petitioner – Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-hc-02102-H) Submitted: November 12, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2015 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ear
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7129 EARL WEBSTER COX, Petitioner – Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-hc-02102-H) Submitted: November 12, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2015 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7129
EARL WEBSTER COX,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
CHARLES RATLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:14-hc-02102-H)
Submitted: November 12, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2015
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earl Webster Cox, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Webster Cox, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Cox v. Ratledge, No. 5:14-hc-02102-H
(E.D.N.C. July 21, 2014). 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