Filed: Sep. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6272 JOSEPH A. DUNSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (5:19-cv-01960-TMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 30, 2020 Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph A. Dunston, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6272 JOSEPH A. DUNSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HECTOR JOYNER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (5:19-cv-01960-TMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 30, 2020 Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph A. Dunston, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6272
JOSEPH A. DUNSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HECTOR JOYNER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (5:19-cv-01960-TMC)
Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 30, 2020
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Dunston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph A. Dunston, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, and denying relief on Dunston’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Dunston
challenged the execution of the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dunston v.
Joyner, No. 5:19-cv-01960-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2020). 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