Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

HICKS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 358 Fed.Appx. 393 (4th Cir. 2009)

358 Fed.Appx. 393

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-12-18
Topic
general

HICKS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 358 Fed.Appx. 393 (4th Cir. 2009) David HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JohnLamanna, Warden of FCI Edgefield in his official capacity,Respondents-Appellees. No. 09-7205.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: December 15, 2009. Decided: December 18, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed HICKS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 358 Fed.Appx. 393 (4th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

HICKS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,358 Fed.Appx. 393(4th Cir. 2009)
David HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; John
Lamanna, Warden of FCI Edgefield in his official capacity,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7205.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 15, 2009.
Decided: December 18, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-01911-HFF).
David Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.Page 394
PER CURIAM:
David Hicks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his28 U.S.C. § 2241(2006) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.Hicks v. Fed.Bureau of Prisons,603 F.Supp.2d 835(D.S.C.2009; filed June 22, 2009 and entered June 23, 2009). 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.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩