Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06261/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06261-0/pdf.json

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

---

,· 

ERIC 

v. 

ART 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Uoited Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cb:uit 

FEB 5 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER ------------- Clerk 

NELSON BERTRAM, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) No. 90-6261 

) ( D. C. No. CIV 90-500-T) 

) (W. Dist. Okla.) 

BEELER, Warden ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Eric Nelson Bertram appeals the district court's 

denial of his writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 

*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: 90-6261 Document: 010110098439 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Bertram claims he was denied due process of law when the 

Parole Commission issued a warrant and filed a detainer against 

him without affording him a timely parole revocation hearing. Mr. 

Bertram also claims the Commission violated his due process rights 

by using the detainer to raise his prison security status. 

Lastly, he contends the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing in order to decide these issues. 

The right to a prompt parole revocation hearing arises only 

after a warrant is executed. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 87 

(1976). Because Mr. Bertram's warrant was issued but not executed, we agree with the district court that the Commission was 

under no obligation to hold a revocation hearing. 

Mr. Bertram's argument that the filing of the detainer has 

caused him to be kept at a higher level of security is also 

unavailing. As in Moodyf "petitioner's present confinement and 

consequent liberty loss derive not in any sense from the outstanding parole violation warrant," but from his convictions for 

mail fraud and firearms violations while he was on parole from his 

first sentence. See id. at 86. 

Finally, Mr. Bertram contends an evidentiary hearing should 

have been held to determine whether the warrant should act as a 

detainer or whether it should be executed. Specifically, he 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6261 Document: 010110098439 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 2 
. ' 

questions the Commission's motive in choosing to let the warrant 

stand as a detainer. Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a 

habeas petition is a decision within the discretion of the district court. See Braley v. Shillinger, 902 F.2d 20, 21 (10th Cir. 

1990). Because "the Parole Commission alone has the power to 

choose whether to order that a parole violator warrant be executed 

or be filed as a detainer," McConnell v. Martin, 896 F.2d 441, 446 

(10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 167 (1990), we do not 

find that the district court abused its discretion. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6261 Document: 010110098439 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 3