Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06173/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06173-0/pdf.json

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

---

/' 

FILED 

Unitecl States Co~<?f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

SEP O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOY JIMMY NEAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; A.F. 

BEELER, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-6173 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-219-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is a prose appeal from the denial of a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, Joy Jimmy Neal, asserted in 

the district court that the Parole Commission improperly 

*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: 91-6173 Document: 010110084253 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
\, 

calculated his presumptive release date because the Parole 

Violator Warrant was executed on July 28, 1988, and not March 1, 

1990. He also contended the Parole Commission "deliberately made 

a false statement" that petitioner requested a continuance of his 

parole revocation hearing and that he was not given credit for 

time spent in state custody. The district court examined the 

record and found that petitioner's factual contentions were 

without foundation. Mr. Neal has appealed this ruling, but his 

contentions are conclusory and largely indecipherable. The case 

is pending upon petitioner's motion to appeal without prepayment 

of fees. 

We have examined the record, and we conclude the trial 

court's findings are supported by the record. The facts asserted 

by petitioner are simply inaccurate. We conclude he can make no 

rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues 

raised on appeal. Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed on 

appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. See 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); 

Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). The appeal is 

dismissed because no rational argument can be made. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6173 Document: 010110084253 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2