Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06391/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06391-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BRYAN JAMES CAREL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

APR 1 61991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6391 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION 

Respondent-Appellee. 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-1524-P) 

( W. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

We grant the appellant's request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

The appellant, Bryan Carel, appeals from the district court's 

dismissal of his 28 u.s.c. § 2241 habeas petition. He raises one 

issue on appeal: whether the Parole Commission abused its 

discretion when it calculated his initial parole eligibility date. 

* 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: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 1 
The district court held that the Parole Commission had not abused 

its discretion. We affirm. 

FACTS 

Carel was convicted and sentenced to two five year prison 

terms for filing a false income tax return and for making a false 

statement on a Federal Aviation Form. The district court 

suspended the second five year term on the condition that he be 

placed on probation for five years following his release from 

prison. 

Carel's initial pre-hearing parole assessment was prepared on 

December 26, 1989. 1 Carel's salient factor score was calculated 

at eight--a relatively high figure reflecting a positive 

assessment of Carel's rehabilitative potential. However, his 

"severity of offense" category was rated as a Category Eight on 

the basis that Carel's two convictions stemmed from his 

involvement in a number of major drug transactions. Under the 

Parole Guidelines Table, a "severity of offense category" of eight 

cross-referenced with a salient factor of eight equates to a 

parole date of 100+ months. 28 C.F.R. § 2.20(j)(2) (1989). 

At his initial parole hearing on January 22, 1990, Carel 

argued that because he had not been found guilty of any drug 

offenses, that it was improper to consider his alleged involvement 

in drug distribution schemes for purposes of calculating his 

initial parole eligibility. Carel noted that if the eligibility 

1 Because the two offenses Carel was convicted of occurred before 

the effective date of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 

Carel is eligible for parole. We note that a defendant who is 

sentenced under the Guidelines is not eligible for parole. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 2 
date calculation had not taken into account the alleged drug 

offenses, his initial parole eligibility date would have been set 

at Oto 10 months. The hearing examiners disagreed and held that 

there was sufficient evidence in the presentence report to support 

their recommendation that Carel's parole eligibility be based upon 

his purported drug activities, notwithstanding his protestations 

of innocence. The examiners did note, however, that the 100+ year 

figure was somewhat misleading because in any event, Carel would 

be eligible for parole after forty months--the 2/3 date of 

completion. Initial Hearing Summary at 1 (Jan. 22, 1990) (located 

at Respondent's Answer to Habeas Corpus Petition, Exhibit D, No. 

Civ-90-1524-P (Oct. 11 1990, W.D. Okla.)). Both the Regional 

Commissioner as well as the Parole Commission National Appeals 

Board affirmed the examiners' decision. 

Carel, having exhausted all available administrative avenues 

for relief, petitioned for habeas relief with the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district 

court in a memorandum opinion dismissed his petition. Carel filed 

a timely appeal to this court. We now turn to the merits of his 

petition. 

DISCUSSION 

We begin by noting that our ability to review a Parole Board 

decision is extremely narrow: "The standard of review •.• is 

whether the decision is arbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of 

discretion." Nunez-Guardado v. Hadden, 722 F.2d 618, 620 (10th 

Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). Where the prisoner disputes the 

accuracy of information presented, the Commission is required to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 3 
resolve the dispute by applying a preponderance of the evidence 

standard. 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(c)(1989). Our review of whether the 

Commission reached the correct result is limited to a 

determination of whether there is "some evidence" to support the 

Commission's decision. See Maddox v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 821 F.2d 

997 (5th Cir. 1987); Kramer v. Jenkins, 803 F.2d 896, 901 (7th 

Cir. 1986). Thus, the question we address is whether there is 

some evidence to support the Commission's decision to rate Carel's 

offense severity as a Category Eight. 

The level eight rating was based upon a finding at all three 

levels (the examiners, the Regional Commissioner, and the Parole 

Commission National Appeals Board) that Carel's income tax 

problems were related to his participation in a number of drug 

transactions. The Parole Commission noted that Carel had bought 

and sold a number of planes that were used to transport large 

quantities of drugs. The Commission focused on a sale of an Aero 

Commander in early 1986 that was used to transport twenty-two 

kilograms of cocaine. The Parole Commission found that by selling 

this aircraft, Carel had knowingly aided and abetted a conspiracy 

with the intent to distribute in excess of 18.75 kilograms of 

cocaine. Under 28 C.F.R. § 2.20, a cocaine distribution offense 

involving a quantity in excess of 18.75 kilograms is assessed at a 

severity level of eight. 

The Parole Commission based its findings upon Carel's 

presentence report. Although Carel had not been charged with any 

drug offenses, his presentencing report described in detail his 

alleged involvement in several narcotics distribution schemes. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 4 
Carel did not object to the presentencing report when it was 

tendered by the prosecution during his sentencing hearing. The 

report contained the following information: Carel had been 

involved in illegal drug activities during the years 1978 through 

1986. During this time, Carel had both flown aircraft loads of 

illegal drugs from foreign countries and had purchased several 

aircraft for use by other drug runners. In both 1984 and 1985, 

Carel had purchased Piper Apache airplanes to be used to smuggle 

drugs. Towards the end of 1985, Carel purchased a Cessna 411. He 

then sold the plane to a drug smuggler for $50,000. All of these 

sales involved cashiers' checks in amounts of less than $10,000 

thereby enabling Carel to avoid filing a currency transaction 

report. The Cessna 411 was found abandoned and wrecked near 

Salinas, Mexico. Residue of a marijuana cargo was found in the 

wreckage. In November of 1985, Carel purchased and then sold an 

Aero Commander that was later seized on March 20, 1986, in 

Roswell, New Mexico, carrying a cargo of twenty-two kilograms of 

cocaine. In early 1986, Carel's own Piper airplane was seized at 

an airport in Texas. The plane had been used to import five 

hundred and twenty-three pounds of marijuana. Carel was arrested, 

pled guilty to possession of marijuana, and was sentenced by state 

court to a ten year probation term and was fined $25,000. 

Although Carel contends that he had no intention of aiding 

and abetting the purchasers of the Aero Commander airplane to 

transport their twenty-two kilogram cargo of cocaine, the 

presentence report certainly contained "some evidence" to the 

contrary. At a minimum, the fact that Carel had pled guilty to a 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 5 
possession of narcotics charge involving over 500 pounds of 

marijuana in September of 1986 meets the "some evidence" standard. 

The last argument we address is Carel's claim that he was 

denied the opportunity to present evidence to the Parole 

Commission and that as a result, his due process right to a 

meaningful hearing had been denied. This contention is without 

merit. Carel confuses two concepts: (1) his right to present his 

side of the case to the Parole Board and (2) the Parole Board's 

right to consider yet simultaneously reject his proffer. Carel's 

due process right only embodies the first concept. Upon reviewing 

the record, we are convinced that Carel was given meaningful 

opportunity to present his side of the case. Indeed, in its 

Notice of Action on Appeal, the National Appeals Board Commission 

stated: 

The Commission has considered your version of the 

offense. However, the Commission finds more persuasive 

the information which indicates that you were utilizing 

your special skills to broker airplanes to a cocaine 

importation conspiracy with knowledge that those 

airplanes would be used for activities to further the 

conspiracy. 

Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition, 

Appendix G. 2 The gravamen of Carel's complaint is that the Parole 

2 Carel introduced an affidavit to the effect that the Parole 

Commission refused to consider his side of the story at his 

January 22, 1990 hearing. According to Carel he was told by an 

examiner: 

Essentially what I hear ... the contesting of the 

information, essentially that has to do with the court. 

I think I indicated that earlier. You know we are bound 

by that information as being the official version. What 

I'm saying is that you have to go back to court and 

[petition] the court about making changes in the 

presentence report. I know what you're saying, but the 

[Footnote continued ... ] 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 6 
Board refused to believe his side of the story and instead, 

attributed more weight to the Presentence Report. That simply 

does not equate with a due process violation. See Robinson v. 

Hadden, 723 F.2d 59, 62 (1983) ("The Parole Commission shall 

consider, if available and relevant, presentence investigation 

reports."). 

The district court's decision to deny the appellant's 

petition for habeas relief is AFFIRMED. 

[ ... footnote continued] 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

point remains that until that's changed by the court, 

you know, that's still the document of the court. It's 

what we consider in [the decision]." 

Petitioner's Addendum to Memorandum in Support of Petition for 

Habeas Corpus, No. Civ-904524-P (Oct. 11, 1990, W.D. Okl). Carel 

claims that by placing so much weight on the presentence report, 

the Commission had violated his due process rights. Carel argues 

that he had not contested the presentence report at his sentencing 

hearing because he only had ten minutes to review the document and 

because the · recommendation contained in the Report was that he be 

paroled in Oto 10 months. We do not find this argument 

persuasive. Carel should have objected at the time of sentencing 

to those portions of the report that he found to be inaccurate. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-6391 Document: 010110034186 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 7