Barry Earl Williams v. United States Parole Commission John Hahn, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg

72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39604, 1995 WL 737238
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 12, 1995
Docket95-7148
StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 128 (Barry Earl Williams v. United States Parole Commission John Hahn, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barry Earl Williams v. United States Parole Commission John Hahn, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, 72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39604, 1995 WL 737238 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Barry Earl WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; John Hahn, Warden, Federal
Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 95-7148.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-94-807)

Barry Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 (1988) 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. Williams v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. CA-94-807 (E.D. Va. June 26, 1995). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39604, 1995 WL 737238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-earl-williams-v-united-states-parole-commiss-ca4-1995.