The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-2920•Linda M. White v. Riverview School
05-2920Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 27, 2007
1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1441
___________
Philip L. Burgess, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
U.S. Parole Commission, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: April 5, 2007
Filed: April 9, 2007
___________
Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Philip L. Burgess appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition, wherein he challenged the failure of the United States Parole
Commission to convert his foreign sentence to a sentence for an analogous United
States offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A, following his transfer to the United
States to serve a sentence imposed in Mexico. Having conducted careful de novo
review, see Hutchings v. U. S. Parole Comm’n, 201 F.3d 1006, 1008-09 (8th Cir.
-- 1 of 2 --
2We decline to consider Burgess’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal,
which are based on allegations not made in the district court. See Naucke v. City of
Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 n.2 (8th Cir. 2002).
-2-
2000) (standard of review), we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons
explained by the court.2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.