Longshore v. Holder

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

Feb. 20, 2002

Case

Longshore v. Holder

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Michael Longshore petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his parole revocation. The district court concluded that Longshore failed to exhaust his administrative remedy and that his claim was now proeedurally barred. We agree and affirm. Longshore was convicted in federal court of bank robbery and was sentenced to thirteen years imprisonment. Long-shore was paroled in February 1997. In November 1997, Longshore was charged with violating his parole and a warrant was issued for his arrest, which was executed in August 1998. The Parole Commission held a series of hearings to consider the charged violations. Longshore was charged with three violations: use of illegal drugs, failure to report to his probation officer as directed, and robbery. At the first hearing, the hearing examiner found that Longshore had violated his parole conditions by using illegal drugs and failing to report to his probation officer. The third charge was continued to allow a witness to appear. The notice informing Longshore of…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.