Philip Burgess v. U.S. Parole Comm.

Eighth Circuit

Philip Burgess v. U.S. Parole Comm.

221 F. App'x 470

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 2007

Docket06-1441

StatusUnpublished

This text of 221 F. App'x 470 (Philip Burgess v. U.S. Parole Comm.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Philip Burgess v. U.S. Parole Comm., 221 F. App'x 470 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Philip L. Burgess appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, wherein he challenged the failure of the United States Parole Commission to convert his foreign sentence to a sentence for an analogous United States offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A, *471 following his transfer to the United States to serve a sentence imposed in Mexico. Having conducted careful de novo review, see Hutchings v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 201 F.3d 1006, 1008-09 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review), we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons explained by the court. 2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. We decline to consider Burgess’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal, which are based on allegations not made in the district court. See Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 n. 2 (8th Cir.2002).

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Philip L. Burgess appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, wherein he challenged the failure of the United States Parole Commission to convert his foreign sentence to a sentence for an analogous United States offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A, *471 following his transfer to the United States to serve a sentence imposed in Mexico. Having conducted careful de novo review, see Hutchings v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 201 F.3d 1006, 1008-09 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review), we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons explained by the court. 2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. We decline to consider Burgess’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal, which are based on allegations not made in the district court. See Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 n. 2 (8th Cir.2002).

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 F. App'x 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-burgess-v-us-parole-comm-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack