IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NORMAN N. SHELTON, : : CIVIL ACTION v. : : NO. 22-1780 BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, : ET AL. :

ORDER AND NOW this 29th day of September, 2023, upon consideration of Petitioner Norman N. Shelton’s Petition Under

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition,” ECF No. 1); Petitioner’s Amended Brief in Support of the Petition (ECF No. 13); Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 15); the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Scott W. Reid (ECF No. 16); Petitioner’s “Rebuttal to Respondents’ Motion Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (ECF No. 17); and Petitioner’s “Motion of Rebuttal to Defendants’ Report and Recommendation,” which the Court construes as Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18); and after a thorough and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. 3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus having been dismissed and denied, Petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 3, 20) are DENIED.1 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve copies of this Order and of the filings docketed at ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 upon Petitioner at his address listed on the docket

and in Petitioner’s pro se submissions. 3. Petitioner’s “Motion of Notice” (ECF No. 19) is DISMISSED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ R. Barclay Surrick R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

1 The Court further notes that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a federal habeas corpus case. See Pennsylvania v. Finley,

(1987).