Quesenberry v. Director, VDOC

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7037

GEORGE EDWARD QUESENBERRY, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-567)

Submitted: November 20, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Edward Quesenberry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

George Edward Quesenberry appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). In his petition, Quesenberry maintained that the Virginia Parole Board’s revocation of good-time credits, earned prior to parole release, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. In the recent decision of Warren v. Baskerville, F.3d , 2000 WL 1692658 (4th Cir. Nov. 13, 2000) (No. 99-7230), this court decided this issue, holding that the Virginia Parole Board (“Board”) possessed the authority to revoke good-time credits, and that the Board’s policy change did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis-

miss the appeal. 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