Case Name: Rickey G. ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Col. Stephen L. ANDRASCHKO, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-30
Citations: 53 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 02-3182
Parties: Rickey G. ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Col. Stephen L. ANDRASCHKO, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
Rickey G. ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Col. Stephen L. ANDRASCHKO, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-3182.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 30, 2002.
Rickey G. Rogers, Fort Leavenworth, KS, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jackie A. Rapstine, Topeka, KS, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 military-prisoner appeal. Mr. Rogers was convicted by a general court-martial of rape, robbery, housebreaking, attempted rape, AWOL, assault, and burglary. He was sentenced to forty years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge. He was released on parole, but parole was revoked due to his violation of parole conditions.
In his § 2241 petition, Mr. Rogers challenges the Army Clemency and Parole Board's revocation of his parole and the denial of street-time credit. The district court denied the petition holding that the Board adhered to its regulations and applicable due process principles. This appeal followed.
After a thorough review of the brief and the record, and for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's well-reasoned May 16, 2002, Order, we hold that no relief is available to Mr. Rogers.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.