Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Damon ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee. Damon Elliott, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. Wilson, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-7301, No. 16-6501
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 27, 2016
    Decided: September 28, 2016
    
      Damon Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 15-7301, Damon Elliott, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and denying relief on that basis. We remanded for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to determine whether Elliott’s notice of appeal should be construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period, and if so, whether reopening was merited. On remand, the district court granted Elliott’s motion to reopen. In No. 16-6501, Elliott appeals this subsequent order.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Elliott’s motion for the appointment of counsel in No. 15-7301, grant his motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Elliott v. Wilson, No. 1:14-cv-00209-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 10, 2015 & entered Feb. 23, 2015; filed Mar. 14, 2016 & entered Mar. 15, 2016). 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