OPINION *

Bernard Williams, a state-court prisoner, appeals the District Court’s order dismissing -his civil rights lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will affirm.

Williams filed suit against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His complaint alleged that he was sentenced to serve two to four years for a state-court conviction in 2008. After he was released on parole in 2010, he was arrested and convicted of a new offense. Thereafter, the parole board extended the maximum date for his original conviction to June 22, 2013 — this calculation included the eighteen months he was out of prison on parole. Williams alleged that this sentencing calculation violated his rights against double jeopardy, as he has “been twice punished for the same crime.” He requested compensation for the eighteen months he was • unlawfully confined and that the District Court credit the eighteen months against the prison sentence for the second conviction. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Williams’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.CL 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Williams appealed. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial questions. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

We agree with the District Court that William’s claims are barred under Heck, In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 if it calls into question the lawfulness of his conviction or confinement, unless he can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. Williams does not allege that his sentence *485 has already been invalidated, and. to grant his requested relief — compensation for his confinement and credit for time-served applied to his new conviction — would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Parole Board’s decision to revoke his parole. See Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (applying Heck to parole revocation decisions). Accordingly, he is precluded from attacking that decision through § 1983.

Because this appeal presents us with no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3rd Cir. LAE 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.