Case Name: James C. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee; James C. Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vanessa P. Adams, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 227 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: Nos. 06-7963, 07-6468
Parties: James C. HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee. James C. Harris, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. Adams, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
James C. HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee. James C. Harris, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. Adams, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.
Nos. 06-7963, 07-6468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2007.
Decided: May 14, 2007.
James C. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, James C. Harris, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Harris also appeals the district court's order denying his motion for release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Adams, No. 3:06-cv-00057-HEH (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2006; Jan. 16, 2007; Mar. 23, 2007). We deny Harris's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.