US v. Victor Perkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for summary disposition (Local Rule 27(f)) [1000141650-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000149669-2]; denying Motion for default judgment [1000156408-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [1000164819-2] Originating case number: 5:92-hc-00654-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000179297]. Mailed to: Victor Bernard Perkins. [17-6836]

Appeal: 17-6836

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/24/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6836

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR PERKINS,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:92-hc-00654-BR)

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Bernard Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Dodson, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jennifer Dee Dannels, FEDERAL MEDICAL
CENTER, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6836

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/24/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Victor Perkins appeals from the district court’s order denying his pro se motion to
vacate the November 6, 1992, order committing him to the custody and care of the
Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2012). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Perkins, No. 5:92-hc-00654-BR (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017). We
also deny Perkins’ motions for summary disposition, to appoint counsel, for default
judgment, and for bail. 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

2