Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kimberlin v. US Parole Commission, 97-7108 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7108 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7108 BRETT C. KIMBERLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-7452 BRETT C. KIMBERLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1687-AW) Submitted: June 10, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7108 BRETT C. KIMBERLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-7452 BRETT C. KIMBERLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1687-AW) Submitted: June 10, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brett C. Kimberlin, Appellant Pro Se. Tamera Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kimberlin v. United States Parole Comm’n, No. CA-97-1687-AW (D. Md. June 6, 20, and 27, 1997, and Aug. 29, 1997). Additionally, we grant Appellant’s motion to suplement the record. However, we deny Appellant’s motions for sanctions and Appellee’s motion to file a surreply. Further, we deny as moot Appellant’s motion for expedited disposition of his appeal. 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer