Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Herrold v. Gunja, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Gene Allen Herrold filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Herrold appealed the denial. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Herrold's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in their decision.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Herrold v. Gunja, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Gene Allen Herrold filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Herrold appealed the denial. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Herrold's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in their decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-12-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7462

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gene Allen Herrold filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Herrold appealed the denial. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Herrold's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in their decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Herrold v. Gunja, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Gene Allen Herrold filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that was denied by the district court. Herrold appealed the denial. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying Herrold's § 2241 petition. The Fourth Circuit also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in their decision.

    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. 01-7462

    GENE ALLEN HERROLD,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    J. E. GUNJA, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
    (CA-01-1560-WMN)

    Submitted:

    November 26, 2001

    Decided:

    December 12, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Gene Allen Herrold, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Gene Allen Herrold appeals the district courts order and
    order on reconsideration denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241
    (1994) petition.

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion and find no reversible error.


    firm on the reasoning of the district court.

    Accordingly, we afSee Herrold v. Gunja,

    No. CA-01-1560-WMN (D. Md. filed June 1, 2001, entered June 4,


    2001; filed July 25, 2001, entered July 25, 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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like