Case Name: William HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joyce FRANCIS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer; Federal Correctional Institution, Gilmer; Bureau of Prisons, a/k/a B.O.P., a/k/a Federal Bureau of Prisons; Department of Justice, a/k/a Federal Department of Justice, a/k/a United States Department of Justice; Office of the Solicitor General of the United States; Roberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-22
Citations: 209 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 06-7585
Parties: William HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joyce FRANCIS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer; Federal Correctional Institution, Gilmer; Bureau of Prisons, a/k/a B.O.P., a/k/a Federal Bureau of Prisons; Department of Justice, a/k/a Federal Department of Justice, a/k/a United States Department of Justice; Office of the Solicitor General of the United States; Roberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
William HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joyce FRANCIS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer; Federal Correctional Institution, Gilmer; Bureau of Prisons, a/k/a B.O.P., a/k/a Federal Bureau of Prisons; Department of Justice, a/k/a Federal Department of Justice, a/k/a United States Department of Justice; Office of the Solicitor General of the United States; Roberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-7585.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2006.
William Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Hill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v. Francis, No. 1:06-cv-00080-IMK, 2006 WL 2519547 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 29, 2006). 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.