# McRae v. DC Parole Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 23, 2002

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1008686

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 23, 2002
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1008686

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6823

JACK MCRAE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAROLE BOARD; DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-01-283-3)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Carol Paskin Epstein,
Michael Alan Stern, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Jack McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the

reasoning of the district court that McRae has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

McRae v. D.C. Parole Bd., No. CA-01-283-3 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1008686. Public record. Not legal advice.