Court Opinion

ID: 9902192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:42.516635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.233366
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6736      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6736

        DANIEL ERIC COBBLE, a/k/a Johnathan Wayne Plemons, a/k/a Daniel
        Castleberry,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION EDGEFIELD,

                            Respondent - Appellee,

                     and

        UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,

                            Respondent.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:23-cv-00250-DCN)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Daniel Eric Cobble, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6736      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Daniel Eric Cobble, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting

        the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Cobble’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s order. Cobble v. Warden Edgefield Fed. Corr. Inst., No. 6:23-cv-00250-

        DCN (D.S.C. July 13, 2023). We deny Cobble’s motion for a certificate of appealability

        as unnecessary and deny his motion to transfer motions from a prior appeal as moot. We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    2