Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    David Scates v. Tracy Johns, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David Michael Scates, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders denying Scates' petition and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    David Scates v. Tracy Johns, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    1) David Michael Scates, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders denying Scates' petition and motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6160

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) David Michael Scates, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders denying Scates' petition and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    David Scates v. Tracy Johns, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David Michael Scates, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its orders denying Scates' petition and motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6160

    DAVID MICHAEL SCATES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    TRACY W. JOHNS, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:11-hc-02047-D)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2012

    Decided:

    June 6, 2012

    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Michael Scates, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Michael Scates, a federal prisoner, appeals the
    district courts orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2241
    (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition and his subsequent motion for
    reconsideration.
    reversible

    We

    error.

    have

    reviewed

    Accordingly,

    the

    record

    although

    we

    and

    grant

    find

    no

    leave

    to

    proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    the

    district

    court.

    Scates

    v.

    Johns,

    (E.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2011; Jan. 25, 2012).

    No.

    5:11-hc-02047-D

    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

    You might also like