Joe Ferguson, A/K/A Joseph Anthony Ferguson v. Sam Samples, Warden Us Region Parole Comm'n, 829 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Joe Ferguson, A/K/A Joseph Anthony Ferguson v. Sam Samples, Warden Us Region Parole Comm'n, 829 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Barnhart (vawd, 2003-03-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Barnhart
W.D. Va. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Britton v. Gardner, 270 F.Supp. 412, 417 (W.D.Va.1967) (“All services rendered in connection with proceedings before the Secretary must be included in a petition directed to him.”); see also Craig v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 35 , 1987 WL 44657 (4th Cir.1987) (unpublished) (vacating and remanding awards of attorney’s fees “[s]ince the fees awarded herein were not limited to services before the court”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joe Ferguson, A/K/A Joseph Anthony Ferguson
v.
Sam Samples, Warden Us Region Parole Commission
87-7548.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 4, 1987.
829 F.2d 35
Unpublished

829 F.2d 35
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Joe FERGUSON, a/k/a Joseph Anthony Ferguson, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Sam SAMPLES, Warden; US Region Parole Commission,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 87-7548

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 16, 1987.
Decided September 4, 1987.

Joe Ferguson, appellant pro se.

Before ERVIN, CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

A review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal from its order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 is without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. Ferguson v. Samples, C/A No. 86-1108-HC (E.D.N.C., March 4, 1987).

2

AFFIRMED.