Case Name: Elwaldo R. JAMES, a/k/a Calvin B. Smith, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director SC Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of SC; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institute, RespondentsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-05
Citations: 223 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 06-7528
Parties: Elwaldo R. JAMES, a/k/a Calvin B. Smith, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director SC Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of SC; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institute, RespondentsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 243–243

Head Matter:
Elwaldo R. JAMES, a/k/a Calvin B. Smith, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director SC Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of SC; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institute, RespondentsAppellees.
No. 06-7528.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 5, 2007.
Decided: April 5, 2007.
Elwaldo R. James, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Nikole Deanna Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Riley, Pope & Laney, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elwaldo R. James seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. James challenges the calculation of his sentence, but he has been released from custody and does not allege that collateral consequences warrant relief. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as moot. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982); Vandenberg v. Rodgers, 801 F.2d 377, 378 (10th Cir.1986). 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.
DISMISSED.