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)
06-6232•Ralph Staino v. United States Parole Commission
06-6232Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 29, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6232
RALPH STAINO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:04-hc-00962-FL)
Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ralph Staino, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ralph Staino, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Staino v. U.S. Parole
Comm’n, No. 5:04-hc-00962-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2005; Jan. 26,
2006). 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.