Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pitt v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Mark Pitt, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging his conviction that was denied by the district court. Pitt appealed and filed two motions to alter or amend the judgment, which were also denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling that Pitt's petition was properly characterized as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6438

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mark Pitt, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging his conviction that was denied by the district court. Pitt appealed and filed two motions to alter or amend the judgment, which were also denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling that Pitt's petition was properly characterized as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Pitt v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark Pitt, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging his conviction that was denied by the district court. Pitt appealed and filed two motions to alter or amend the judgment, which were also denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's ruling that Pitt's petition was properly characterized as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The court dispensed with oral argument, as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the 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. 05-6438

    MARK PITT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-04-591-5-H)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2005

    Decided:

    May 26, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mark Pitt, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark Pitt, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts orders denying relief on his petition filed under
    28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000) and two subsequent motions to alter or
    amend the judgment.
    reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, while we grant Pitts motion to

    file a formal brief, we affirm on the ground that Pitts petition


    is properly characterized as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (2000) motion.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like