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)
05-6432•Richard Morris v. Patricia Stansbery
05-6432Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 26, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6432
RICHARD MORRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICIA STANSBERY,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CA-04-147-5-BO)
Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: August 26, 2005
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Richard Morris, a federal parolee, 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 Morris v. Stansbery, No. CA-04-147-5-BO (E.D.N.C.
Feb. 9, 2005). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.