Thompson v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Thompson v. United States

62 F. App'x 353

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2003

DocketNo. 02-5197

StatusPublished

This text of 62 F. App'x 353 (Thompson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. United States, 62 F. App'x 353 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued June 6, 2002, be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that under the governing provisions in effect when he was sentenced, the D.C. Board of Parole lacked the discretion to deny reparóle after fifteen to twenty-four months. Moreover, he received the hearing guaranteed by 28 D.C.M.R. § 104.9. Accordingly, he has not shown he was disadvantaged by the United States Parole Commission’s use of the current regulations. See Warren v. United States Parole Commission, 659 F.2d 183 (D.C.Cir.1981).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued June 6, 2002, be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that under the governing provisions in effect when he was sentenced, the D.C. Board of Parole lacked the discretion to deny reparóle after fifteen to twenty-four months. Moreover, he received the hearing guaranteed by 28 D.C.M.R. § 104.9. Accordingly, he has not shown he was disadvantaged by the United States Parole Commission’s use of the current regulations. See Warren v. United States Parole Commission, 659 F.2d 183 (D.C.Cir.1981).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. App'x 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-united-states-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack