UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6034
DAVID L. CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JANET RENO; U.S. BUREAU
OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Custodian;
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - EDGEFIELD;
M. E. RAY, Warden of Federal Correctional In-
stitution, Edgefield,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 00-6575
DAVID L. CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Custodian U.S. Bureau of
Prisons; STEPHEN COAL, Warden and Executive
Officer, FCI Estill,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-1087-2-18, CA-00-196-2-18AJ)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
David L. Carter appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders accepting
the recommendations of the magistrate judge and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Carter v. United States, No. CA-99-1087-2-18 (D.S.C.
Dec. 21, 1999); Carter v. Sawyer, No. CA-00-196-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Mar.
13, 2000). Carter has filed a motion seeking a writ of habeas
corpus ad testificandum, appointment of counsel, stay of any prison
transfer, medical care by an independent doctor, daily access to
legal material and a law library, and a copy of the informal brief-
ing order. We deny the motion in all respects except for a copy of
the informal briefing order, which has been provided to him. 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
3
Carter v. United States
Combined Opinion