Labels:book | reckoner | sky OCR: Cartson, 826 F.2d 698. 702 {7th Cir 1987); Wilson Lock- hart 949 F.2d 1051 {8th Cir 1991}: Alexgnder fohnson 742 F.2d 117 (4th Cir 1984} Roller cannot have it both ways. Either he is chal- lenging the increase in the time between his parole hear- ins constituting ar past facto violation when applied him which case the action lies solely habeas corpus tPreiser 411 U.5 500} and must be played aut ir the South Carolina state courts r he you challenging that increase which case mystery just what he might be challenging as the retroactive advantage supposed substantial enough violate the Post Facto Clause 18 clear that the core his post facto challenge which attacks the retroactively applied decrease the frequency ot his parole consider ation hearings, is challenge future restraint order obtain ...
(.png)
