Pinkerton v. Benov
Docket: No. 99-56594; D.C. No. CV-97-01452-HLH(RZ)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 4, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
James L. Pinkerton appeals the district court's denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 regarding a decision by the United States Parole Commission. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviewing the case de novo. The court emphasizes that the judicial review of the Parole Commission's decisions is extremely limited, with factors considered by the Commission being largely unreviewable, even for abuse of discretion. Pinkerton's due process argument claims the parole board's reasons for denying parole were insufficient. He cites a previous case where a state parole board's reasons were deemed inadequate. However, the parole board in Pinkerton's case provided specific reasons based on aggravating circumstances related to his crime, including his involvement in a robbery and the execution of the victim. The court finds that the board's consideration of these circumstances does not violate due process. Pinkerton also argues that the board considered undisclosed reasons, such as a plan to murder a witness and his arrest record, which he claims were false. The court holds that since the board’s stated reasons were valid, it will not presume reliance on other potentially invalid reasons without explicit acknowledgment. Additionally, the court clarifies that the parole board is not required to summarize all evidence supporting its decision, and Pinkerton had sufficient notice of the allegations against him. Pinkerton raises an ex post facto challenge regarding the use of 1984 parole guidelines instead of the 1976 guidelines in effect at the time of his offense. The court rejects this claim, stating that parole guidelines do not constitute "laws" under the ex post facto clause. Lastly, Pinkerton contends he was deprived of due process because the National Appeals Board did not respond to an appeal within 60 days as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 4215(b). Although the response was late, the court requires a showing of unreasonableness and prejudice to substantiate a constitutional claim, which Pinkerton fails to demonstrate. Moreover, the issue became moot once the decision was issued. The appellate court affirms the lower court's ruling, noting that this disposition is not designated for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.