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

No question identified. : . OQ UESTIONI(CS) PRESENTED 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,