Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Ballenger v. Olson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Frederick Ballenger filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the district court denied. Ballenger appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court and magistrate judge. The appeals court denied Ballenger's motion for counsel and decided oral arguments were not necessary in the case.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Ballenger v. Olson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Frederick Ballenger filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the district court denied. Ballenger appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court and magistrate judge. The appeals court denied Ballenger's motion for counsel and decided oral arguments were not necessary in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-08-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6503

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Frederick Ballenger filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the district court denied. Ballenger appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court and magistrate judge. The appeals court denied Ballenger's motion for counsel and decided oral arguments were not necessary in the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Ballenger v. Olson, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Frederick Ballenger filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the district court denied. Ballenger appealed. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the district court and magistrate judge. The appeals court denied Ballenger's motion for counsel and decided oral arguments were not necessary in the case.

    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. 97-6503

    FREDERICK BALLENGER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    KEITH E. OLSON, Warden; MARK SIMPSON, Dr.,
    Regional DAP Coordinator; MARGARET HAMBRICK,
    Regional Director; ED CROSLEY, Administrator;
    KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director of BOP; JANET RENO,
    Attorney General,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge.
    (CA-96-1902-5)
    Submitted:

    August 14, 1997

    Decided:

    August 21, 1997

    Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frederick Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United
    States Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
    his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record
    and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of
    the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ballenger v. Olson,
    No. CA-96-1902-5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 1997). We deny Appellant's
    motion for counsel and 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