Goodine v. Lindler ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court's orders granting his
    petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (1994), amended by Antiter-
    rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
    132, 
    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. Osborne, 
    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-6363

Filed Date: 4/9/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021