Case Name: Jacob E. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, at Cumberland; Bobby Shearin, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-04
Citations: 51 F. App'x 471
Docket Number: No. 02-7007
Parties: Jacob E. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, at Cumberland; Bobby Shearin, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
Jacob E. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, at Cumberland; Bobby Shearin, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7007.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Dec. 4, 2002.
Jacob E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Mythili Raman, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, MICHAEL and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Jacob E. Johnson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). He claims the district court erred in its determination that Johnson had not been denied a timely hearing by the United States Parole Commission. He also claims that the district court erred in denying him an opportunity to file a "traverse" to the Government's responsive brief.
Johnson acknowledges that he has now received a hearing. Although the hearing took place shortly after the expiration of the period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4214 (2000) (repealed), there was no prejudice from the brief delay. Further, because Johnson's claims are plainly meritless, any error in failing to permit him to respond to the Government's response is harmless. Finally, to the extent Johnson claimed he was denied a revocation hearing, that claim is moot in light of the hearing held after the district court's order. See Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir.1986).
On appeal, Johnson assigns error to the Commission's revocation of his parole. This claim has not been presented to the district court; further, Johnson has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Therefore, the challenge to the revocation order is not properly before this court.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
AFFIRMED.