61 F. 3d 916 - Reed v. Oc
61 F3d 916 Reed v. Oc
61 F.3d 916
Norman REED, Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
O.C. Jenkins, Warden and United States Parole Commission,
Respondents--Appellees.
No. 94-3423.
D.C. No. 93-CV-3212.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
July 31, 1995.
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
Advertisement
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Norman Reed filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. He alleges that the action of the Parole Commission, in directing that his sentences run consecutively instead of concurrently following the violation of his parole, was unlawful.2 The district court denied his petition.
We review the Parole Commission's actions deferentially. We will disturb its judgment only if it has abused its discretion. Miller v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 989 F.2d 420, 422 (10th Cir.1993). In this case, petitioner contends that the Parole Commission exceeded its statutory mandate when it enacted 28 C.F.R. 2.47(e)(2). We also review the Commission's interpretation of its statutory directive deferentially, rejecting its interpretation only when the contrary intent of Congress is clear or the Commission's determination is unreasonable. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).
We have reviewed the statutes and regulations in this case and have determined that the Commission promulgated section 2.47(e)(2) properly. See McConnell v. Martin, 896 F.2d 441, 442 (10th Cir.) ("The Commission's subsequent decision to revoke [the defendant's] parole and order the first sentence run consecutive to release from the second sentence was proper."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 861 (1990). Accordingly, petitioner's sentence is appropriate, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
In a supplemental brief, petitioner raises an issue regarding the violator warrant. Petitioner has waived this issue because he failed to raise it before the district court. See United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1316 (10th Cir.1993)