Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    McManus v. Hamidullah, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tony Waddle McManus, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 habeas petition that was denied by the district court. McManus appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and subsequent denial of McManus's motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As the facts and legal issues were clear, the Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    McManus v. Hamidullah, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Tony Waddle McManus, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 habeas petition that was denied by the district court. McManus appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and subsequent denial of McManus's motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As the facts and legal issues were clear, the Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-06-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6239

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Tony Waddle McManus, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 habeas petition that was denied by the district court. McManus appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and subsequent denial of McManus's motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As the facts and legal issues were clear, the Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments.

    Copyright:

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

    McManus v. Hamidullah, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tony Waddle McManus, a federal prisoner, filed a § 2241 habeas petition that was denied by the district court. McManus appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and subsequent denial of McManus's motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. As the facts and legal issues were clear, the Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral arguments.

    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. 06-6239

    TONY WADDLE MCMANUS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    HAMIDULLAH, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (9:05-cv-00035-SB)

    Submitted: June 22, 2006

    Decided: June 30, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Tony Waddle McManus, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tony Waddle McManus, a federal prisoner, appeals the
    district

    courts

    orders

    accepting

    the

    recommendation

    of

    the

    magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000)


    petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    McManus v.

    Hamidullah, No. 9:05-cv-00035-SB (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2005; Nov. 16,


    2005).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like