Campbell v. United States Parole Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting claims asserted under the Constitution’s ex post facto, due process, and double jeopardy clauses, and the Fifth and Eighth amendments
• examining United States Parole Comm'n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084 (D.C. 1997) (other citation omitted)
• discussing “firmly established” precedent that later statute providing for street-time credit upon revocation did not repeal older statute requiring forfeiture of street-time credit upon revocation
• rejecting claim that forfeiture of street-time credit violates the Constitution’s ex post facto, due process and double jeopardy clauses and the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment
• finding the double jeopardy clause “simply not applicable to parole decisions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).