Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Holsey v. Sondervan, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Aaron Holsey's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration. The appellate court conducted a review of the record and district court orders and found no reversible errors. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Holsey v. Sondervan, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Aaron Holsey's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration. The appellate court conducted a review of the record and district court orders and found no reversible errors. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-8093

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Aaron Holsey's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration. The appellate court conducted a review of the record and district court orders and found no reversible errors. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders.

    Copyright:

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

    Holsey v. Sondervan, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Aaron Holsey's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent motions for reconsideration. The appellate court conducted a review of the record and district court orders and found no reversible errors. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its orders.

    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. 01-8093

    AARON HOLSEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA01-2558-JFM)

    Submitted:

    April 30, 2002

    Decided:

    May 22, 2002

    Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Aaron Holsey appeals the district courts orders denying
    relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition and denying his
    motions for reconsideration.

    We have reviewed the record and the

    district courts orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly,


    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning
    of the district court. See Holsey v. Sondervan, No. CA-01-2558-JFM
    (D. Md. Sept. 25, 2001; Oct. 9, 2001; filed Dec. 3, 2001, entered
    Dec. 4, 2001).

    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like