Filed: Sep. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7746 ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIC WILSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00896-TSE-JFA) Submitted: September 7, 2018 Decided: September 13, 2018 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7746 ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIC WILSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00896-TSE-JFA) Submitted: September 7, 2018 Decided: September 13, 2018 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7746
ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC WILSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00896-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: September 7, 2018 Decided: September 13, 2018
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., 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. Hairston v. Wilson, No. 1:13-cv-00896-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 9, 2013;
entered Oct. 11, 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