Goodine v. Lindler (4th Cir. 1997)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (April 09, 1997)

Docket number: 96-6363


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/goodine-v-lindler-18190997
Id. vLex: VLEX-18190997

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6363

FRED GOODINE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus

RICHARD S. LINDLER, Warden; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK,

Attorney General of the State of South Caro-

lina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-92-804-3-22BC)

Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: April 9, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Goodine, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals the district co urt's orders granting his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- , 110 Stat. 1214, directing Respondent to fashion a remedy and then approving the remedy. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and orders and find no reversible error.

Respondents elected to treat Appellant as parole eligible on a twenty year basis, which is consistent with the representations made to Appellant at the time of his guilty plea. This is a satisfactory remedy that gives Appellant the benefit of his plea bargain. See O'Tuel v. Osb orne , 706 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. Goodine v. Lindler , No. CA-92-804-3-22BC (D.S.C. Feb. 29 and Apr. 1, 1996). 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

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access