Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cherry v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of Karlton Cherry's challenge to the revocation of his earned good time by the Virginia Parole Board. The order lists the parties in the case and indicates that the district court's decision is being affirmed for the reasons stated in its July 2005 order. The appeals court found no reversible error in the record.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7225

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of Karlton Cherry's challenge to the revocation of his earned good time by the Virginia Parole Board. The order lists the parties in the case and indicates that the district court's decision is being affirmed for the reasons stated in its July 2005 order. The appeals court found no reversible error in the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Cherry v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's dismissal of Karlton Cherry's challenge to the revocation of his earned good time by the Virginia Parole Board. The order lists the parties in the case and indicates that the district court's decision is being affirmed for the reasons stated in its July 2005 order. The appeals court found no reversible error in the record.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7225

    KARLTON CHERRY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CAROL A. SIVERS;
    MICHAEL M. HAWKS; HERBERT COULTON, Virginia
    Parole Board Members; DAVID N. HARKER, Vice
    Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN F.
    FAHEY, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; JIM
    SISK, Manager, Court and Legal Services of the
    Virginia Department of Corrections; MRS.
    BOLDEN, Agent, Court and Legal Services;
    JACKIE
    T.
    WATSON,
    Administrative
    Office
    Specialist III, of the Powhatan Correctional
    Reception and Classification Center of the
    Department of Corrections; R. W. HILDE BRAND,
    Treatment
    Program
    Supervisor,
    Dillwyn
    Correctional Center; MS. DANIALS, Treatment
    Counselor, Dillwyn Correctional Center; MS. V.
    KENNEDY,
    Treatment
    Counselor,
    Augusta
    Correctional Center,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
    Judge. (CA-05-747-1)

    Submitted:

    November 22, 2005

    Decided:

    December 7, 2005

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Karlton Cherry, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Karlton

    Cherry

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    summarily dismissing his action challenging revocation of earned


    good time by the Virginia Parole Board.
    record and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Cherry v. Virginia,

    No. CA-05-747-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 11, 2005 & entered July 14,
    2005).

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like