# Howard-Pinson v. Army Clemency & Parole Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 1, 2007 · 225 F. App'x 100

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1022501

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert M. HOWARD-PINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARMY CLEMENCY & PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 1, 2007
- **Citations:** 225 F. App'x 100
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Duncan, Motz, Per Curiam, Williams
- **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/1022501

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7560

ROBERT M. HOWARD-PINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ARMY CLEMENCY & PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cv-01157-CMH)

Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert M. Howard-Pinson, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Ranieri,
Brian Eugene Bentley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Robert M. Howard-Pinson appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition

challenging his military convictions. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Howard-Pinson v. Army Clemency & Parole Bd.,

No. 1:05-cv-01157-CMH (E.D. Va. filed July 10, 2006 & entered July

11, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1022501. Public record. Not legal advice.