Filed: Mar. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7461 CHARLES HAWKINS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN BRICK TRIPP; US PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-hc-02153-FL) Submitted: February 10, 2016 Decided: March 24, 2016 Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Hawkins
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7461 CHARLES HAWKINS, Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN BRICK TRIPP; US PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-hc-02153-FL) Submitted: February 10, 2016 Decided: March 24, 2016 Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Hawkins,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7461
CHARLES HAWKINS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BRICK TRIPP; US PAROLE BOARD,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02153-FL)
Submitted: February 10, 2016 Decided: March 24, 2016
Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Hawkins, 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. Hawkins v. Tripp, No. 5:14-hc-02153-FL (E.D.N.C.
Aug. 31, 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