Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06105/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06105-0/pdf.json

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

---

I ,,, .. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States C-ourt of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

PHILIP M. BRADY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; and 

T.C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

AUG 0 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6105 

) (D.C. No. CIV-88-2103-R) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Philip Brady appeals the district court's order denying his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Brady contends that the 

district court erred in determining that the Parole Commission 

could consider charges dismissed in plea agreement in deciding to 

exceed the guidelines. 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. 

1 

Appellate Case: 89-6105 Document: 010110039621 Date Filed: 08/06/1990 Page: 1 
Our review of Parole Commission decisions is whether there is 

a clear showing that the determination was arbitrary or capricious 

or represented an abuse of discretion. See Resnick Y.!.. United 

States Parole Comm'n, 835 F.2d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 1987). In 

our view, Brady's case falls within the rule announced in NunezGuardado Y.!.. Hadden, 722 F.2d 618, 622 (10th Cir. 1983), where we 

held that the Parole Commission may consider evidence concerning 

counts dismissed as a result of a plea bargain agreement. Because 

Brady admits that there is no specific provision of the plea 

bargain agreement prohibiting such consideration, we find NunezGuardado indistinguishable. Id. Mere representations not to 

prosecute are not sufficient to foreclose Parole Commission 

consideration. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, 

which includes the stated finding of the Parole Commission that 

the guidelines were exceeded due to Brady's repetitive assaultive 

behavior, we cannot say the Parole Commission abused its 

discretion. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6105 Document: 010110039621 Date Filed: 08/06/1990 Page: 2