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)
09-7804•Reginald Bernard Mooney v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN, FCI Edgefield
09-7804Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 28, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7804
REGINALD BERNARD MOONEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN, FCI Edgefield,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-03652-PMD)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Bernard Mooney, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina; William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Bernard Mooney, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Mooney v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-03652-
PMD-JRM (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 2009).∗ 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
∗ Any issues Mooney seeks to raise other that the
applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in Watson v.
United States, 552 U.S. 74 (2007), must be raised in the
sentencing court, in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255
(West Supp. 2009) after obtaining authorization to do so. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2006), § 2255(h).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.