James v. Ozmint
This text of James v. Ozmint (James v. Ozmint) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7528
ELWALDO R. JAMES, a/k/a Calvin B. Smith,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON OZMINT, Director SC Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of SC; WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cv-01294-TLW)
Submitted: March 5, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elwaldo R. James, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Nikole Deanna Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Elwaldo R. James seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. James
challenges the calculation of his sentence, but he has been
released from custody and does not allege that collateral
consequences warrant relief. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal as moot. See Lane v.
Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982); Vandenberg v. Rodgers, 801 F.2d
277, 278 (10th Cir. 1986). 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
James v. Ozmint, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-ozmint-ca4-2007.