THE PETITIONER, CONTENDS THAT His CASE IS
VERY SIMILAR. TO TRANTINO V. STATE OF N.S. _
PAROLE BOARD. AFTER HAVING SERVED THE PUNIT IVE ASPECTS OF HIS SENTENCES, THE BOARD 1SS~VED A 36 MONTH HIT CFUTYRE ELiG BiunityY TERM RET)
WHEN THAT SANCTION IWAS APPEALLEDRN AND
VACATED, THE BOARD CAME BACK WITH RETAL(TORY MEASURES USING STATEMENTS FROM
BP (EAR OLD PRESENTENCE REPORTS ALL EGepLy
MADE BY "PETITIONER, \NHiCH WERE USED TO
TULLEGALLY AALD UN CONST 1 TUTTI OM Ul ISSUE A
DISCRET IOMARY EXTENDED TERM. THEY GAve THE
PETITIONER. & 240 MONTHCZO YEAR) DEATH
SENTENCE BECAUSE HE EXCERSISED THE Riguer
TO APPEAL. NOW HAVING HAD THAT SANCTIO'
ALSO APPEALLED AND VACATED. A SIMILAR.
lO YVERR, ElLGHT MonTie (200 Mont?) FupTeRe ElerBury TERM WAS ISSUED AND Ree
VPHELD APPELLATE DDIViStony DECISI 006, Di=STe ENDENCE OF VIOLATIONS IN TES (TER
PEETERS Laws. HE Now ASKS FHL CouRT
TO INTER CED AND VACATE THE THoaRas
AMO APPEL AT RD iVIST OAS 'PECISION RELEAS IO ng TON ETE TO THE DUMMIieR ATION
BEASOR AMD DEPORTATT On/ ORDER, TH4+r
HAS BEEN IN FLeace Now For We VEARS,

Whether the petitioner's case is similar to Trantino v. State of N.J. Parole Board, where the petitioner was issued a retaliatory extended term sentence after exercising his right to appeal a previous sanction