Legal Opinion

Pinkerton v. Benov

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 4, 2001No. 99-56594; D.C. No. CV-97-01452-HLH(RZ)Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM3

James L. Pinkerton appeals the district court’s denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review a decision of the United States Parole Commission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a section 2241 petition. See United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997). “The scope of judicial review of the [U.S. Parole] Commission’s parole decision ... is exceedingly narrow. Judgments involving a broad range of factors that the Commission takes into account in arriving at its decision are committed to the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander Thomas PIRRO, Defendant-Appellant (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  2. Conklin Wallace v. Robert ChristensenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  3. Claude Frizzell Bloodgood, III v. David A. Garraghty, Warden Attorney General of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  4. United States of America Ex Rel. William Scott v. Illinois Parole and Pardon Board and Lou BrewerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  5. Frederick E. Hopper v. United States Parole CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API