UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7757
EDDIE LEE MUMFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PAUL DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
97-1404-DKC)
Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998
Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie Lee Mumford, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Lynn Howe, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Mumford appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West
1994 & Supp. 1998). Mumford alleged that there has been a change in
the way that the Maryland Parole Commission computes his eligi-
bility for parole review, and that the change violates the Ex Post
Facto Clause of the Constitution. We conclude that, assuming
Mumford’s factual allegations to be true, they do not constitute a
“sufficient risk” of increasing the punishment attached to the
crime. California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499,
509 (1995). Mumford cannot show with assurance that he would have
received parole under the old system, but only that he missed an
opportunity to be evaluated for earlier release. Therefore, the
change is not an Ex Post Facto violation. Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d
227, 237 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3260
(U.S., Oct. 6, 1997) (No. 97-5072).
We affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment in
this action. 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