Court, seeking to compel the Board to grant him parole. Specifically, Appellant argued that the Board, through its denial of parole, had continuously violated the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions because the Board had applied the criteria of the 1996 amendment to Appellant. Further, Appellant claimed that the Board abused its discretion by imposing back-time in excess of the maximum presumptive range for a technical parole violation, and abused its discretion by refusing to parole Appellant to the INS. By per curiam order, the Commonwealth Court dismissed Appellant’s petition, stating that “denial of parole is not appealable” pursuant to that court’s decisions in Reider v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 100 Pa.Cmwlth. 333, 514 A.2d 967 (1986) (<HOLDING>) and Stewart v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 714
holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole holding that the action of denying parole is not an adjudication subject to judicial review holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding that a defendant at federal sentencing who is on state parole where no parole revocation has occurred is not subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment thus ussg  5g13 is inapplicable holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania