White v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 91-6101
| Decision Date | 06 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-6101,91-6101 |
| Citation | 940 F.2d 1539 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Leonard D. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, United States Parole Officer, Art Beeler, Warden, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Page 1539
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, United States Parole
Officer, Art Beeler, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Before STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. White, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of habeas corpus relief.
Mr. White was convicted in 1982 of a federal crime and sentenced to six years in prison. He was paroled in 1986 and his parole was revoked in May 1987. In September 1987, he was again paroled. In August 1989, a parole violator warrant was issued as Mr. White was charged with three state felonies. These state crimes were reduced to misdemeanor charges. Mr. White entered a nolo contendere plea to the misdemeanor charges and was sentenced to two consecutive one year suspended sentences. The parole violator warrant was amended to reflect these facts and this warrant was executed in September 1989.
The Parole Commission then notified Mr. White it found probable cause to believe he violated his parole and a hearing would be ordered. Mr. White was then moved to Texas where he signed a form waiving counsel and in this form he did not request the testimony of witnesses.
An institutional revocation hearing was held in December 1989, and the panel concluded Mr. White had in fact committed the three felonies which the state ordinarily charged him with and thus found Mr. White violated parole. Mr. White unsuccessfully appealed this decision to the National Appeals Board.
Mr. White then filed the now pending pro se petition for habeas corpus relief. Mr. White set forth six grounds for relief which were: (1) the Parole Commission failed to conduct a preliminary interview after the parole violator warrant was executed; (2) prejudicial delay of the revocation hearing; (3) arbitrary denial of appointment of counsel for the revocation hearing; (4) lack of adequate notice of time and place of parole revocation hearing prejudicing his ability to obtain or present witnesses on his behalf; (5) denial of the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and not provided sufficient reasons for not having his witnesses present; and (6) failure to advise Petitioner of the possible consequences of the revocation hearing pertaining to loss of street time and arbitrary and capricious denial of street time.
The district court in a thorough Memorandum Opinion meticulously considered each of the claims and concluded relief should be denied.
On appeal Mr. White raises the same issues and advances essentially the same arguments he made to the district court.
We have considered the arguments raised by Mr. White, both in his initial brief and in his reply brief (which he has styled "Objections to Respondent's Brief"), and Mr. White has failed to persuade us the district court committed error.
We can address the issues raised no better and no more thoroughly than the district court. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its' ten page Memorandum Opinion dated March 6, 1991, a copy thereof being attached hereto.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF OKLAHOMA
LEONARD D. WHITE, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
CIV-90-1931-W
March 6, 1991.
Before the Court for consideration is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 brought pro se and in forma pauperis by a prisoner in federal custody, currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, Oklahoma. Petitioner seeks relief from the Parole Commission's decision revoking parole. The government has responded and the matter is at issue. The Court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial