LANGGOOD, GERALD v. CARROLS, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Board’s stated reasoning “[parolee] was being supervised for a drug offense when he committed this new drug offense” and that “[i]t also dealt with a large quantity of heroin” satisfied the Pittman standard
• checking sentence credit challenge box on administrative remedies form, coupled with disputing Board’s time calculations, preserved Pittman claim for appellate review
• checking sentence credit challenge box on administrative remedies form, coupled with disputing Board’s time calculations, preserved Pittman claim for appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).