Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6373 HUGO RENE GOMEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D. L. YOUNG, WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:17-cv-01383) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugo Rene Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6373 HUGO RENE GOMEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. D. L. YOUNG, WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:17-cv-01383) Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugo Rene Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6373
HUGO RENE GOMEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. L. YOUNG, WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:17-cv-01383)
Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hugo Rene Gomez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hugo Rene Gomez appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. Gomez v. Young, No. 5:17-cv-01383 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 22, 2019). 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