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

483 F.2d 71, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8406
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 9, 1973·No. 73-1859·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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).

483 F.2d 71 (Norman B. Gorham v. Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related