Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Mark Roberts v. US Parole Commission, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark Roberts, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit granted Roberts leave to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, finding no reversible error in the record. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Mark Roberts v. US Parole Commission, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Mark Roberts, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit granted Roberts leave to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, finding no reversible error in the record. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-01-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7216

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mark Roberts, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit granted Roberts leave to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, finding no reversible error in the record. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    Copyright:

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

    Mark Roberts v. US Parole Commission, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark Roberts, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit granted Roberts leave to proceed in forma pauperis but affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, finding no reversible error in the record. The unpublished opinion does not constitute binding precedent.

    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. 15-7216

    MARK ROBERTS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; WARDEN U.S.P. LEE,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
    Judge. (7:14-cv-00233-MFU-RSB)

    Submitted:

    December 31, 2015

    Decided:

    January 28, 2016

    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mark Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.


    Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark
    courts

    order

    petition.
    error.

    denying

    federal
    relief

    prisoner,
    on

    his

    28

    appeals
    U.S.C.

    the

    district

    2241

    (2012)

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

    pauperis,
    court.

    Roberts,

    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    reasons

    stated

    by

    the

    district

    Roberts v. U.S. Parole Commn, No. 7:14-cv-00233-MFU-RSB

    (W.D. Va. June 5, 2015; June 30, 2015).

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like