Alan Royall v. Justin Andrew
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999871609-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02154-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999949417]. Mailed to: Alan Royall FCI PETERSBURG MEDIUM FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1000 Petersburg, VA 23804. [16-6607]
Appeal: 16-6607
Doc: 12
Filed: 10/18/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6607
ALAN ROYALL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02154-D)
Submitted:
October 13, 2016
Decided:
October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan Royall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6607
Doc: 12
Filed: 10/18/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Alan
Royall,
a
federal
prisoner,
appeals
the
district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *
Accordingly,
although
we
grant
leave
to
proceed
in
forma
pauperis, we affirm the reasons stated by the district court.
Royall v. Andrews, No. 5:15-hc-02154-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2016).
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
To the extent Royall argues that the Supreme Court’s
opinion in Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014)
invalidates our opinion in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34
(4th Cir. 2000), until the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of
this court issues a substantive opinion overruling Jones, that
decision remains binding in this circuit.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?