Norman B. Gorham v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States

Fifth Circuit

Norman B. Gorham v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States

483 F.2d 71, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8406

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 1973

Docket73-1859

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 483 F.2d 71 (Norman B. Gorham v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norman B. Gorham v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States, 483 F.2d 71, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8406 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In his petition for habeas corpus, Gor-ham alleges that the parole board deprived him of fundamental fairness and abused its discretion when it refused to grant him parole. As this Court, sitting en banc, has recently stated, “[i]n the absence of evidence of flagrant, unwarranted, or unauthorized action by the Board, it is not the function of the courts to review such proceedings.” Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole (en banc), 5 Cir., 1973, 477 F.2d 278, 283. [Footnote omitted.] The record in the instant case reveals no evidence which would entitle Gorham to relief.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In his petition for habeas corpus, Gor-ham alleges that the parole board deprived him of fundamental fairness and abused its discretion when it refused to grant him parole. As this Court, sitting en banc, has recently stated, “[i]n the absence of evidence of flagrant, unwarranted, or unauthorized action by the Board, it is not the function of the courts to review such proceedings.” Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole (en banc), 5 Cir., 1973, 477 F.2d 278, 283. [Footnote omitted.] The record in the instant case reveals no evidence which would entitle Gorham to relief.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 F.2d 71, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-b-gorham-v-elliot-l-richardson-attorney-general-of-the-united-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack