(CA-00-392-2-11AJ) Clarence Edward Alexander v. United States Department of Justice

01-6725Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit19 de set. de 2001

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

Filed: September 19, 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6725
(CA-00-392-2-11AJ)
Clarence Edward Alexander,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
United States Department of Justice, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 13, 2001, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the district court informa-
tion is corrected to read “Appeal from the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B.
Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-392-2-11AJ)”.
On page 2, line 6 of text -- “S.D.W. Va.” is corrected to read
“D.S.C.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6725
CLARENCE EDWARD ALEXANDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BUREAU OF
PRISONS; MICKEY E. RAY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-392-2-11AJ)
Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 13, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Edward Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Edward Alexander 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. See Alexander v. United States Dep’t of Justice,
No. CA-00-392-2-11AJ (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 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

-- 3 of 3 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.