Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Steele v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Larry Steele, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error because Steele's claim was foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit's previous decision in Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court granted Steele's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's order denying relief on the 2241 petition.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Steele v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Larry Steele, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error because Steele's claim was foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit's previous decision in Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court granted Steele's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's order denying relief on the 2241 petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7332

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Larry Steele, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error because Steele's claim was foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit's previous decision in Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court granted Steele's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's order denying relief on the 2241 petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Steele v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Larry Steele, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error because Steele's claim was foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit's previous decision in Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court granted Steele's request to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's order denying relief on the 2241 petition.

    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. 05-7332

    LARRY M. STEELE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever III,
    District Judge. (CA-05-381-5)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2005

    Decided:

    December 28, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Larry M. Steele, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Larry M. Steele, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
    courts order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2241 (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    error because the claim is foreclosed by our decision in Yi v.


    Federal

    Bureau

    of

    Prisons,

    412

    F.3d

    526

    (4th

    Cir.

    2005).

    Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm


    the order of the district court.

    See Steele v. Stansberry, No.

    CA-05-381-5 (E.D.N.C. July 27, 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