Case Name: Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Steven Dewalt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Butner Satellite Camp, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-16
Citations: 13 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 00-7347
Parties: Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Steven Dewalt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Butner Satellite Camp, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
Vincent Eugene LINEBERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Steven Dewalt, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Butner Satellite Camp, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 00-7347.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2001.
Decided July 16, 2001.
Vincent Eugene Lineberger, pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raliegh, NC, for appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Vincent Eugene Lineberger appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Lineberger's motion to transmit the record from the district court, deny his motion for appointment of, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lineberger v. United States, No. CA-00-103-5-1F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2000). 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.