Pendleton v. Thompson

Fourth Circuit

Pendleton v. Thompson

5 F. App'x 273

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2001

Docket00-6346

StatusUnpublished

This text of 5 F. App'x 273 (Pendleton v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pendleton v. Thompson, 5 F. App'x 273 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lewis L. Pendleton, II, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his action asserting that the Virginia Parole Board violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when, upon revoking his parole, it likewise revoked his previously earned good time credits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pendleton’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Pendleton v. Thompson, No. CA-99-291 (W.D.Va. Feb. 16, 2000); see also Warren v. Baskerville, 233 F.3d 204 (4th Cir.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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lewis L. Pendleton, II, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his action asserting that the Virginia Parole Board violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when, upon revoking his parole, it likewise revoked his previously earned good time credits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pendleton’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Pendleton v. Thompson, No. CA-99-291 (W.D.Va. Feb. 16, 2000); see also Warren v. Baskerville, 233 F.3d 204 (4th Cir.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. App'x 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendleton-v-thompson-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack