Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01319/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01319-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

... 

Fl LED 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

M y 1 1990 

GUSTAVO L. CORTES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ANTHONY BELASKI; U.S. BUREAU OF 

PRISONS; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; 

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1319 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. NO. 89-M-1113) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Gustavo Larios Cortes, appearing prose, appeals the denial 

of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. Mr. Cortes was convicted in federal court in California 

of multiple violations of the federal drug laws, and was sentenced 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1319 Document: 01019967286 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 1 
to three year concurrent terms. While that sentence was on appeal 

to the Ninth Circuit, Mr. Cortes filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the court below, alleging: (1) that the United 

States Parole Commission violated its guidelines, did not follow 

correct procedure, and proceeded on insufficient or improper facts 

in establishing a prospective parole eligibility date; (2) that 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service improperly lodged an 

immigration detainer against him; and (3) that he was improperly 

sentenced to terms of special parole and supervised release. 

We affirm substantially for the reasons set out in the 

recommendation of the United States Magistrate, adopted by the 

district court. That is, as to the first issue we are not 

persuaded that the United States Parole Commission abused its 

discretion in setting Mr. Cortes' prospective parole date, or that 

it committed any violation in its procedure which would entitle 

Mr. Cortes to the requested relief. The Commission was entitled 

to examine and use Mr. Cortes' presentence report, including the 

hearsay information in question in the report. As to the second 

issue, Mr. Cortes has not exhausted his administrative remedies 

with respect to his complaint regarding the detainer. And, as to 

the third issue, Mr. Cortes' complaints regarding his sentencing 

must be pursued in the district in which he was tried. 

Mr. Cortes also argues that the district court failed to 

address his ''Request for Protective Orders" which was filed during 

the pendency of proceedings in the district court. That ''request" 

sought relief regarding Mr. Cortes' access to his "jailhouse 

lawyer" and legal materials, and is being treated by Mr. Cortes as 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1319 Document: 01019967286 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 2 
if it were a separate cause of action. It is not. At most, it is 

a motion which either became moot, or was effectively denied, when 

the court entered its decision on the merits. We find no error in 

the district court proceedings with respect to that matter. Other 

arguments raised by Mr. Cortes on appeal are beyond the confines 

of his petition. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1319 Document: 01019967286 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 3