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)
03-6797•Melvin Williams v. United States Parole Commission
03-6797Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 8, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6797
MELVIN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; JOHNNY
HUGHES; SEWALL SMITH, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-03-
278-MJG)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 8, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Marr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M.
DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Williams v. United States Parole Comm’n, No. CA-03-278-
MJG (D. Md. entered Apr. 22, 2003; filed Apr. 25, 2003). 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.