Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process Clauses require strict scrutiny review of a state statute amendment affecting parole eligibility under an equal protection challenge

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Did the substantive component of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses require the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to use the strict scrutiny standard in its review of the District Court's Denial of the Petitioner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint in which Petitioner alleged that he was denied equal protection under the law when the Virginia General Assembly amended the statute, which had been enacted in that State to abolish parole, enacted under Code of Virginia § 53.1-165.1? B. Based on the United States Supreme Court precedent established in McGowan v. Maryland, 81 S. Ct. 1101 (1961), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in affirming the judgment of the District Court which had decided that the Petitioner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint did not state an equal protection claim. PARTIES The Petitioner, Douglas Fauconier, prison identification number 1068864, files this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari pro se. He is a prisoner in the Virginia Department of Corrections, and is incarcerated at Pocahontas State Correctional Center, P.O. Box 518, Pocahontas, Virginia 24635. The Respondent is the State of Virginia. i