James Edward Gipson v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 69 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
James Edward Gipson v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 69 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Reading Broadcasting, Inc. (paeb, 2008-03-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re Reading Broadcasting, Inc.
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Catfish Galley, Inc., 69 F.3d 541 (Table), 1995 WL 629038 (8th Cir.1995) (section 1144 does not preclude a motion under Rule 9023); In re Miller, 16 F.3d 240 (8th Cir.1994) (section 1230, the chapter 12 counterpart to section 1144, does not preclude a motion under Rule 9023); see also In re Wojda, 371 B.R. 656, 659 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2007) (section 1330 does not preclude consideration of a Rule 9023 motion); In re Cook, 205 B.R. 617 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1996) (granting reconsideration of a chapter 13 confirmation order); contra In re Bulson, 327 B.R. 830, 848 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.2005) (section 133…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Blair v. St. Louis County Justice Center
E.D. Mo. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“The appropriate vehicle for a state pre-trial detainee to challenge his detention is § 2241.”); see also Hammond v. Delano, 69 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (noting inmate could not “obtain release from custody through a section 1983 action”); Brown v. Sedgwick Cnty.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Edward Gipson
v.
U.S. Parole Commission
95-1258.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 7, 1995.
69 F.3d 541
Unpublished

69 F.3d 541

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.
James Edward GIPSON, Appellant,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 95-1258WM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 6, 1995.
Nov. 7, 1995.

Before FAGG, LOKEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

James Edward Gipson appeals the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 habeas petition and his motion for reconsideration. In his petition, Gipson alleged the United States Parole Commission violated his right to due process by failing to notify him that a possible consequence of parole revocation for violating his release conditions included forfeiture of credit for time spent on parole; he also complained of the time lapse between two incidents of his parole-violating conduct and the parole revocation. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court's rulings are correct. Having considered all of Gipson's claims, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

Appellee's motion to supplement the record is granted.