Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Jones v. US Parole Comm, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    John Edward Jones filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a decision of the United States Parole Commission. The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the decision to deny Jones' petition. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Jones v. US Parole Comm, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    43 views2 pages
    John Edward Jones filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a decision of the United States Parole Commission. The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the decision to deny Jones' petition. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-10-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6132

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    John Edward Jones filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a decision of the United States Parole Commission. The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the decision to deny Jones' petition. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    43 views2 pages

    Jones v. US Parole Comm, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    John Edward Jones filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a decision of the United States Parole Commission. The district court denied relief and adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the decision to deny Jones' petition. The court dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-6132

    JOHN EDWARD JONES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-98-730)

    Submitted:

    September 29, 2000

    Decided:

    October 12, 2000

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    John Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    John Edward Jones appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition.

    We have reviewed

    the record and the district courts opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
    Jones v. United States Parole Commn, No. CA-98-730 (E.D.N.C. Dec.
    1, 1999).

    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

    You might also like