Case Name: Michael Edward KENNEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward F. REILLY, Jr., Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Cranston J. Mitchell, Commissioner, United States Parole Commission; Patricia K. Cushwa, Commissioner, United States Parole Commission; Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Commissioner, United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-30
Citations: 393 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 10-6390
Parties: Michael Edward KENNEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward F. REILLY, Jr., Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Cranston J. Mitchell, Commissioner, United States Parole Commission; Patricia K. Cushwa, Commissioner, United States Parole Commission; Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Commissioner, United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 111–112

Head Matter:
Michael Edward KENNEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward F. REILLY, Jr., Chairman, United States Parole Commission; Cranston J. Mitchell, Commissioner, United States Parole Commission; Patricia K. Cushwa, Commissioner, United States Parole Commission; Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Commissioner, United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-6390.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2010.
Michael Edward Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Edward Kennedy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kennedy v. Reilly, No. 1:09-cv-01802-BEL, 2010 WL 761204 (D.Md. Mar. 2, 2010). 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.