Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06501/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06501-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7301

DAMON ELLIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-6501

DAMON ELLIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00209-LO-JFA)

Submitted: September 27, 2016 Decided: September 28, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 16-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3