Narrative Opinion Summary
Charles E. Pringle, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by the district court. After reviewing the case, the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision, citing the reasoning provided in the original ruling (Pringle v. Warden, No. 5:06-cv-00160-FPS-JSK, N.D.W.Va. July 9, 2008). The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary, as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the written materials. The ruling is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of District Court's Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the reasoning provided in the original decision.
Reasoning: After reviewing the case, the appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision, citing the reasoning provided in the original ruling (Pringle v. Warden, No. 5:06-cv-00160-FPS-JSK, N.D.W.Va. July 9, 2008).
Appeal of Habeas Corpus Denial under 28 U.S.C. § 2241subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the denial of a federal prisoner's petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and found no reversible error in the district court's decision.
Reasoning: Charles E. Pringle, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by the district court.
Oral Argument Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the written materials.
Reasoning: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary, as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the written materials.