Case Name: Alfred Lee MAULDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; Mary Ellen Thomas, Warden, Butner, North Carolina; Joseph Tang, Staff Attorney; Lieutenant Yonce; Lieutenant Wenzler; Cardinal White, SRO Unit Manager, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-22
Citations: 55 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 02-7230
Parties: Alfred Lee MAULDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; Mary Ellen Thomas, Warden, Butner, North Carolina; Joseph Tang, Staff Attorney; Lieutenant Yonce; Lieutenant Wenzler; Cardinal White, SRO Unit Manager, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 148–149

Head Matter:
Alfred Lee MAULDIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; Mary Ellen Thomas, Warden, Butner, North Carolina; Joseph Tang, Staff Attorney; Lieutenant Yonce; Lieutenant Wenzler; Cardinal White, SRO Unit Manager, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7230.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 22, 2003.
Alfred Lee Mauldin, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Lee Mauldin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mauldin v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, CA-02-336-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2002). We deny Maul-din'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.