James Miller v. Air Force Clemency and Parole

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-02621-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998842799]. Mailed to: James L. Miller 302 Virginia Street Buffalo, NY 14201. [11-7523]

Appeal: 11-7523

Document: 12

Date Filed: 04/30/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7523

JAMES L. MILLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
AIR FORCE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
ANTHONY SANGIACOMO, Chief U.S. Probation Officer,
Defendant,
JOSEPH GIACOBBE, Chief U.S. Probation Officer,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cv-02621-JFM)

Submitted:

April 26, 2012

Decided:

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April 30, 2012

Appeal: 11-7523

Document: 12

Date Filed: 04/30/2012

Page: 2 of 3

James L. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-7523

Document: 12

Date Filed: 04/30/2012

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

L.

Miller

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.
2011)

petition.

reversible

We

error

have

reviewed

the

court’s

in

the

record

rejection

ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

and

find

no

of

Miller’s

Because Miller fails

to challenge in his informal brief the court’s disposition of
his remaining claims, he has forfeited appellate review of those
claims.

See

4th

Cir.

R.

34(b)

raised in appellant’s brief).
reasons

stated

by

the

(confining

review

to

issues

Accordingly, we affirm for the

district

court.

Miller

v.

Air

Force

Clemency & Parole Bd., No. 1:10-cv-02621-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 20,
2011).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3