Horace Crenshaw v. John T. Hadden, Warden, 941 F.2d 1206 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Horace Crenshaw v. John T. Hadden, Warden, 941 F.2d 1206 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Bonnette (scd, 2021-03-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Bonnette
D.S.C. · 2021 · confidence medium
Servs. of Baltimore Cty., 941 F.2d 1206, at *5 (4th Cir. 1991)). 13 Defendants cite to portions of Rawl’s deposition (specifically, ECF No. “13-3, pp. 4, 7-9, 12, 16 and 31”) to argue otherwise.
discussed Cited "see" Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
D.D.C. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
In other words, *151 “[t]here is no language in ERISA which provides for the accrual of welfare benefits or guarantee that such benefits are vested or nonforfeitable.” West, 813 F.2d at 954 ; see accord Finley v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 941 F.2d 1206 (4th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (“While both types of plans are subject to ERISA’s reporting and disclosure requirements ... and its fiduciary standards for management of plan assets ..., welfare benefit plans are not subject to ERISA’s strict standards regarding vesting, participation and funding which are impos…
discussed Cited "see" Yarber v. Capital Bank
E.D.N.C. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
When employers undertake those actions, they do not act as fiduciaries.... ” Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 890 , 116 S.Ct. 1783 , 135 L.Ed.2d 153 (1996) (quotation and citations omitted); see Finley v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 941 F.2d 1206 , 1991 WL 159716, at *4 (4th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Sutton v. Weirton Steel Div. of Nat’l Steel Corp., 724 F.2d 406 , 410-11 (4th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rountree v. Robinson
W.D. Va. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
See,e.g.,Ajaj v. United States, 479 F. Supp. 2d 501, 542 (D.S.C. 2007) (citing cases); see also Carroll v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, 941 F.2d 1206 , *1 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished) (noting that pro seprisoners may handwrite legal papers for submission to the court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Horace Crenshaw
v.
John T. Hadden, Warden
91-6579.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Aug 19, 1991.
941 F.2d 1206
Unpublished

941 F.2d 1206

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Horace CRENSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
John T. HADDEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 91-6579.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 1, 1991.
Decided Aug. 19, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-91-116-HC-D)

Horace Crenshaw, Appellant pro se.

G. Norman Acker, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Horace Crenshaw appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.[*] Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Crenshaw v. Hadden, CA-91-116-HC-D (E.D.N.C. May 10, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

We reject Crenshaw's allegation that the parole commission double-counted certain factors in denying his parole. The record shows that the commission was concerned with the nature of his institutional infractions and the number of institutional infractions, which established a pattern of behavior. The commission was also concerned about granting release because of the seriousness of his offense. Therefore, there was no double-counting and the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying parole. See Castaldo v. United States Parole Comm'n, 725 F.2d 94, 96-97 (10th Cir.1984); Stroud v. United States Parole Comm'n, 668 F.2d 843, 847 (5th Cir.1982)