Sexton v. Thompson
This text of Sexton v. Thompson (Sexton v. Thompson) 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UNPUBLISHED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. 97-6268
GORDON SEXTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
W. J. THOMPSON, Warden, FCI-Morgantown; JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-141-1)
Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gordon Sexton, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Gordon Sexton appeals a district court order denying relief on
his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). In light of our
recent decision in Pelissero v. Thompson and Hayes v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 559663 (4th Cir. Sept. 3,
1998) (No. 97-6156, 97-6221), we affirm the district court order.
We deny Sexton’s motions for sanctions and for appointment of coun-
sel but grant his motion to present newly discovered case law. 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sexton v. Thompson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sexton-v-thompson-ca4-1998.