Eugene Cunningham v. US Parole Commission ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6702
EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a Eugene J. Cunningham,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; WARDEN of FCI
BENNETTSVILLE,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:16-cv-02847-RMG)
Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Jerome Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Jerome Cunningham appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Cunningham’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2012) petition and the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s denial
of Cunningham’s motion for discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Cunningham v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 9:16-cv-02847-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2017;
May 12, 2017); see Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 251-55 (2000) (holding that, when
retroactive change in parole law does not by its own terms show risk of prolonging inmate’s
incarceration, to show ex post facto violation, inmate must demonstrate new law’s
retroactive application will result in longer period of incarceration than under earlier rule).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2