Court Opinion

ID: 988742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:56:54.656886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:24.550877
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN FRANCIS BRISCOE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM SMITH, Warden; PARRIS N.
GLENDENING, Governor;
KATHLEEN K. TOWNSEND, Lieutenant;
                                                                   No. 95-7720
BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of
Public Safety; RICHARD LANHAM,
Parole Commissioner; PAUL DAVIS,
Deputy Commissioner; DAN D.
ZACCOGNINI, Commissioner; MICHAEL
BLOUNT, Commissioner,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CA-95-2791-DKC)

Submitted: February 20, 1996

Decided: March 12, 1996

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL

John Francis Briscoe, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Francis Briscoe, a Maryland inmate, claimed in this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (1988) action that he was improperly denied parole in August
1995. He also alleged that his next parole eligibility hearing was
scheduled for 1997, although he previously had received annual hear-
ings. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d) (1988). We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

Briscoe's claim concerning the timing of his parole eligibility
reviews is sufficient to survive dismissal under§ 1915(d). If there was
a statutory or regulatory amendment which altered the definition of
criminal conduct or increased the penalty by which a crime is punish-
able, that amendment should be analyzed for a possible ex post facto
violation. See California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 63
U.S.L.W. 4327 (U.S. Apr. 25, 1995) (No. 93-1462). The record is
devoid of any reference to any such amendment or regulation, render-
ing it impossible to conduct an analysis under Morales. We therefore
vacate the district court's decision with regard to this claim and
remand for an analysis of the claim under the factors set forth in
Morales.

To the extent that Briscoe appeals the district court's remaining
findings, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Briscoe v. Smith, No. CA-95-2791-DKC (D. Md.
Sept. 29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                    2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

                    3