Martinez v. Brooks

Fourth Circuit

Martinez v. Brooks

117 F. App'x 891

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2004

Docket04-7403

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 F. App'x 891 (Martinez v. Brooks) 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

Martinez v. Brooks, 117 F. App'x 891 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*892 PER CURIAM.

Salvador Michael Martinez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Martinez v. Brooks, No. CA-03-1021-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 26, 2004 & entered July 27, 2004). 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

*892 PER CURIAM.

Salvador Michael Martinez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Martinez v. Brooks, No. CA-03-1021-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 26, 2004 & entered July 27, 2004). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F. App'x 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-brooks-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack