Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Emilio Sampedro v. William Perrill, Also Known As Bill Perrill, Warden, Fci Englewood United States Parole Commission, 51 F.3d 286, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The prisoner argued that the trial court erred in failing to order the U.S. Parole Commission to credit him for time served in state custody between January 1992 and July 1993. The appellate court reviewed the case documents and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's dismissal of the petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-04-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 51 F.3d 286 Docket: 94-1498

    Original Title

    Emilio Sampedro v. William Perrill, Also Known as Bill Perrill, Warden, Fci Englewood United States Parole Commission, 51 F.3d 286, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The prisoner argued that the trial court erred in failing to order the U.S. Parole Commission to credit him for time served in state custody between January 1992 and July 1993. The appellate court reviewed the case documents and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's dismissal of the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Emilio Sampedro v. William Perrill, Also Known As Bill Perrill, Warden, Fci Englewood United States Parole Commission, 51 F.3d 286, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The prisoner argued that the trial court erred in failing to order the U.S. Parole Commission to credit him for time served in state custody between January 1992 and July 1993. The appellate court reviewed the case documents and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's dismissal of the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    51 F.

    3d 286
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Emilio SAMPEDRO, Petitioner-Appellant,


    v.
    William PERRILL, also known as Bill Perrill, Warden, FCI
    Englewood; United States Parole Commission,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 94-1498.
    (D.C. No. 94-S-1383)

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    April 4, 1995.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.2

    Petitioner Emilio Sampedro, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's
    dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

    On appeal, Petitioner argues: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to order the
    U.S. Parole Commission to award him credit for time served in state custody
    between January 10, 1992 and July 15, 1993, and (2) the trial court's decision
    was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

    We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the magistrate's recommendation, the


    district court's order, and the entire record before us. Based upon our review of
    the record, we find no reversible error and AFFIRM the district court's
    dismissal of Petitioner's 2241 petition.

    AFFIRMED.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without
    oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore
    is ordered submitted without oral argument

    You might also like