The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-6278•Marshall Stowe v. JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden
01-6278Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 10, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6278
MARSHALL STOWE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-96-46, CA-01-9)
Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall Stowe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Stowe appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Stowe v. Brooks, Nos. CR-96-46; CA-01-9 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 31,
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.