Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7054 JOSEPH CUCINIELLO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02008-FL) Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7054 JOSEPH CUCINIELLO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02008-FL) Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7054
JOSEPH CUCINIELLO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02008-FL)
Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Cuciniello, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Cuciniello, 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Cuciniello v. Ratledge, No. 5:15-hc-02008-FL (E.D.N.C.
June 22, 2015). 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