Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Williams v. Pettiford, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding William Earl Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Williams could not show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to challenge the legality of his detention, as required to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court dispensed with oral argument, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8089

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding William Earl Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Williams could not show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to challenge the legality of his detention, as required to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court dispensed with oral argument, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Williams v. Pettiford, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding William Earl Williams' appeal of the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Williams could not show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to challenge the legality of his detention, as required to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court dispensed with oral argument, as the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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. 08-8089

    WILLIAM EARL WILLIAMS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    M. PETTIFORD,
    Complex,

    Warden

    FCI

    Med-Hi

    &

    Camp

    Bennettsville

    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (4:08-cv-00641-HFF)

    Submitted:

    February 26, 2009

    Decided:

    March 6, 2009

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William Earl Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the
    district
    magistrate

    courts
    judge

    (2006) petition.

    order
    and

    accepting

    denying

    the

    relief

    recommendation

    on

    his

    of

    the

    2241

    28 U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the record and agree with the

    district courts conclusion that Williams cannot show that 28


    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2008) is inadequate or ineffective
    to test the legality of his detention.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    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