United States v. Tom Quinsky, United States of Am. v. Tom Quinsky, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Tom Quinsky, United States of Am. v. Tom Quinsky, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pepke v. Wilson (vaed, 2021-12-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Pepke v. Wilson (2×)
E.D. Va. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Pepke cites to two Fourth Circuit cases that he argues authorizes this Court to consider a challenge to his confinement via a § 2241 petition: McNair v. McCune, 527 F.2d 874 (4th Cir. 1975): see Varela v. Whalen, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991) (table).
discussed Cited "see" Brian Farabee v. Harold Clarke
4th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
We have previously found that federal habeas jurisdiction exists to review “the complaint of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity of his original conviction, but the imposition of segregated confinement without elementary procedural due process and without just cause.” McNair v. McCune, 527 F.2d 874, 875 (4th Cir. 1975); see Varela v. Whalen, 946 F.2d 888 , 888 (4th Cir. 1991) (table) (“Varela’s first two claims, alleging that he was convicted of disciplinary infractions without just cause and placed in segregation, raise a McNair issue. . . .
cited Cited "see" Sandlain v. Rickard
S.D.W. Va · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Varela v. Whalen, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991); Hillberry v. Ballard, 2014 WL 7161012 , at *9–10 (S.D.W.
cited Cited "see" United States v. James Vincent Aguilar
5th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United States v. Williams, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir.1991) (table — unpublished) (available on WESTLAW). 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Tom Quinsky, United States of America v. Tom Quinsky
91-7666.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 17, 1991.
946 F.2d 888
Unpublished

946 F.2d 888

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tom QUINSKY, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tom QUINSKY, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 91-7666, 91-7669.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 30, 1991.
Decided Oct. 17, 1991.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Hiram H. Ward, Senior District Judge. (CR-87-241-WS, CA-90-438-6)

Tom Quinsky, appellant pro se.

David Bernard Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, N.C., for appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Tom Quinsky appeals from the district court's orders refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (No. 91-7666) and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (No. 91-7669). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Quinsky, CR87-241-WS; CA-90-438-6 (M.D.N.C. June 19 and July 23, 1991). We also deny Quinsky's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.

2

AFFIRMED.