Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Graves v. Warden W. Chapman, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Graves filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 appealing the denial of relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of relief for the reasons stated. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Graves v. Warden W. Chapman, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    Robert Graves filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 appealing the denial of relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of relief for the reasons stated. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-08-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6423

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Graves filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 appealing the denial of relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of relief for the reasons stated. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    Graves v. Warden W. Chapman, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Graves filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 appealing the denial of relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's denial of relief for the reasons stated. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    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. 08-6423

    ROBERT JAMES GRAVES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN W. ELAINE CHAPMAN,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (5:07-hc-02164-H)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 2008

    Decided:

    August 13, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert James Graves, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert James Graves, a federal prisoner, appeals the
    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241
    (2000)

    petition.

    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    the

    district

    court.

    Graves

    v.

    Warden

    5:07-hc-02164-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 29, 2008).

    W.

    Chapman,

    No.

    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