Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McRae v. DC Parole Board, 02-6823 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-6823 Visitors: 39
Filed: Sep. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6823 JACK MCRAE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAROLE BOARD; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-283-3) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6823 JACK MCRAE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAROLE BOARD; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-283-3) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jack McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Carol Paskin Epstein, Michael Alan Stern, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jack McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that McRae has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See McRae v. D.C. Parole Bd., No. CA-01-283-3 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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. DISMISSED 2
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