Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Chapple v. Henry, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Melvin C. Chapple, Jr. appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Chapple was ineligible for early release under 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B) (1997). The Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chapple's petition and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Chapple v. Henry, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Melvin C. Chapple, Jr. appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Chapple was ineligible for early release under 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B) (1997). The Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chapple's petition and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7716

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Melvin C. Chapple, Jr. appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Chapple was ineligible for early release under 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B) (1997). The Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chapple's petition and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Chapple v. Henry, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Melvin C. Chapple, Jr. appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Chapple was ineligible for early release under 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B) (1997). The Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Chapple's petition and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-7716

    MELVIN C. CHAPPLE, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MARK HENRY, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-3436-S)

    Submitted:

    April 15, 1999

    Decided:

    April 19, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Melvin C. Chapple, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Melvin C. Chapple, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition.

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find no
    reversible error. Chapple is ineligible for early release under 28
    C.F.R. 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B) (1997).

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    See

    Chapple v. Henry, No. CA-98-3436-S (D. Md. Oct. 21, 1998).

    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

    You might also like