Case ID: f-appx_12/html/0041-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold WAPNICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellee.
    Docket No. 00-2541.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 13, 2001.
    Harold Wapnick, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
    Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Susan Corkery, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief, Brooklyn, NY, for appellee.
    Present LEVAL, and SACK, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       The third judge on the panel that was assigned to hear this appeal recused herself and did not participate. The appeal was heard and decided by the panel’s remaining two judges pursuant to the Court's Local Rule § 0.14(b).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Harold Wapnick appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habe-as corpus. He argues, inter alia, that he was entitled to more good time credits, that he was eligible for parole, that his fine was illegally imposed, and that he was deprived of defense witnesses. Wapnick’s good time credits were accurately calculated. His argument regarding entitlement to parole is meritless because the crimes for which he was convicted either continued through or occurred after November 1, 1987, the effective date of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines make him ineligible for parole. See United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13, (2d Cir.1991). His remaining arguments were not raised in the district court and, in any event, are without merit.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.