Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • William v. Brooks, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Michael William filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. He appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief in a per curiam unpublished opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning or decision to deny William's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-03-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7242

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael William filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. He appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief in a per curiam unpublished opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning or decision to deny William's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    William v. Brooks, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael William filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which was denied by the district court. He appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief in a per curiam unpublished opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning or decision to deny William's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-7242

    MICHAEL WILLIAM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden,
    Petersburg, Virginia,

    FCI

    Petersburg,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-01-869-AM)

    Submitted:

    February 12, 2002

    Decided:

    March 27, 2002

    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Michael William, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael William appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition.

    We have reviewed

    the record and the district courts opinion and find no reversible
    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

    court.

    See William v. Brooks, No. CA-01-869-AM (E.D. Va. filed

    July 5, 2001; entered July 6, 2001).

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like