Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06326/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06326-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL_bjD UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appc:un 

TenLli Circui~ 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES J. ROBERTS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEP_ARTMENT OF THE 

NAVY, and UNITED STATES PAROLE 

COMMISSION, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

' 

APR 13 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6326 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-855-B) 

( W. D. Ok la . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, 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. 

Charles J. Roberts appeals from the dismissal of his petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

In his petition Roberts contends that the United States Parole 

Commission lacks jurisdiction over him because he is serving a 

sentence imposed upon him by Navy court martial as a result o f an 

offense committed by him while a member of the United States Navy. 

*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: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 1
We have carefully reviewed the record, including the 

pleadings and arguments of the petitioner, and affirm the district 

court substantially on the grounds and for the reasons set forth 

in the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, filed 

August 16, 1991, and the district court's "Order Adopting 

Magistrate's Report and Recommendation" filed September 18, 1991, 

copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by this 

reference. 

AFFIRM.ED. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 2
DOCKETED 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR1CT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTR1CT OF OKLAHOMA 

CHARLES J. ROBERTS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Petitioner, 

V. 

U.S. NAVY and U.S. PAROLE 

COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

ClV-91-855-8 

FfNDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGfSTRATE JUDGE 

FILED 

AUG l :~ 1991 

This is a Pe tition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. 

Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, 

Oklahoma, assens as his sole ground for habeas relief that the "Federal Parole Board lacks 

jurisdiction on hearing my parole request for my Military Sentence, Violating my 5th, 6th, 

8th and 14th Amendment Rights." Petitioner demands as relief that "he be Order Access 

(sic) to a 'Brig Disposition Board' and the Naval Parole Board, which he is entitled to by 

law and Naval Policy (SECNAVINST 1640.9A)." 

The case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l )(B) for 

findings and a recommendation. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for 

failure to state a claim for relief. Respondent has also offered the Petitioner's 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 3
admirustrative record, filed herein under seal. Petitioner has responded to the motion to 

dismiss in a pleading entitled "Brief ln Support For Writ of Habeas Corpus." 

On August 18, 1981, the Petitioner was convicted by a courts martial conducted by 

the U.S. Navy for the military offense of murder. He received a life sentence, later reduced 

to 25 years on appeal to the Naval Court of Military Review. Petitioner was originally 

incarcerated in the Naval Brig at Norfolk, Virgirua. ln 1983, he was transferred to the 

custody of the Uruted States Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner was subsequently incarcerated 

at the Federal Correctional lnstitution at El Reno, Oklahoma, where on January 3, 1984, 

he was arrested and charged with assault on a government reservation, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §113(c). Petitioner was convicted of this offense and sentenced to a consecutive 

four ( 4) year term. 

The admirustrative record reveals that Petitioner was provided an initial parole 

hearing on April 8, 1985, at the United States Penitentiary, Te rre Haute, Indiana. The 

recommendation of the United States Parole Commission hearing panel was that Petitioner 

be continued to a presumptive parole after serving 216 months, on May 19, 1999, \·vith a 

special drug aftercare condition. The National Appeals Board affirmed the panel's decision. 

On November 7, 1990, a rescission hearing was conducted at the Federal 

Correctional Institution, El Reno, wherein Petitioner admitted having committed seven 

institutional misconducts. The panel recommended that Petitione~s presumptive parole 

date be rescinded to add three months for misconducts related to drugs and alcohol. The 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 4
Petitioner's case was referred pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §2.24(a) to the National 

Commissioners, who concluded that Petitioner's presumptive parole should be rescinded 

to require service of an additional 20 months, to January 19, 2001. This decision was 

affirmed by the National Appeals Board by Notice of Action dated April 24, 1991. 

Petitioner was transferred from military prison to the custody of the federal Bureau 

of Prisons pursuant to aurhoriry expressly granted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

10 U.S.C. §858(a). Pursuant to this statute, 

a sentence of confinement adjudged by a court-martial or other military 

tribunal . . . may be carried into execution by confinement in any place of 

confinement under rhe control of any of the armed forces or in any penal or 

correctional institution under the control of the United States, or which the 

United Scares may be allowed to use. Persons so confined in a penal or 

correctional institution nor under rhe control of one of rhe armed forces are 

subject to rhe same discipline and treatment as persons confined or 

commicted by rhe courts of rhe United Stares . . . 

10 U.S.C. §858(a). See 28 C.F.R.§527. l0(b) (l 99l)(military inmates confined in Bureau 

of Prisons institutions subject co same discipline and treatment as other inmates in those 

institutions); 18 U.S.C. §4083(prisoners sentenced by courts martial to more than one year 

can be con.fined to any federal penitentiary). 

In challenges similar_ to Petitioner's, the language of 10 U.S.C. §858(a) has been 

held to express the intent of Congress to apply the federal parole statutes and the 

jurisdiction of the United States Parole Board, and later the United Stares Parole 

Commission, over military prisoners in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons. In one 

such case, the Court of Appeals for rhe District of Columbia concluded, 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 5
There is no unconstitutional discrimination or other denial of due process 

because of the recognition by Congress that it is desirable or feasible for 

persons confined in such institutions as Lewisburg [Pennsylvania] to be 

subject to certain specified and salutary parole conditions, notwithstanding 

like provisions have not been deemed desirable or feasible for those who 

serve their sentences in a military prison ... 

Kayce v. United States Board of Parole, 306 F.2d 759, 762 (D.C.Cir. 1962). Accord, Bates 

v. Wilkinson, 267 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1959). See Williams v. Ciccone, 415 F.2d 331,332 

(8th Cir. l 969)(per curiarn)(l8 U.S.C. §4164, 1 regarding parole revocations, is applicable 

to a military prisoner in the custody of the federal Bureau-of Prisons). 

The Tenth Circuit has decided the same issues as are raised by Petitioner, and has. 

concluded that the federal parole statutes do apply to military prisoners in federal custody. 

Mitchell v. Kennedy, 344 F.2d 935, 936 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 920 (1965). 

This circuit has specifically concluded that naval authorities have broad power to change 

the originally designated place of confinement of a Navy prisoner to a United States prison. 

Kuykendall v. Taylor. 285 F.2d 480, 481 (10th Cir. 1960). The Tenth Circuit has further 

concluded that a military prisoner transferred to the federal Bureau of Prisons was correctly 

sentenced as a parole violator after he was found to have violated the conditions of his 

parole. Osborne v. Tavlor 328 F.2d 131, 132 (10th Cir.)(per curiam), cert. denied, 377 

U.S. 1002 (1964). 

1 18 U.S.C. §4164 was repealed by the Comprehensive Crime Control Acr of 1984, Pub.L. 98-473, 

tit. 11, §218(a)(4), 235, 98 Srar. 2027, 2031, effective November 1, 1987, for offenses committed after 

November 1, 1987, by Pub.L. 99-217, §4, 99 Srat. 1728, but applicable for five years after effecrive dare of 

repeal for offenses committed before effecrive dare, pursuant to Pub.L. 98-473, tir. II, §23S(a)(l)(B). 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 6
( 

Petitioner relies on King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 406 F.Supp. 36 (D.C.lll. 

1976). However, the district court in King held that §858(a) "does incorporate the federal 

parole eligibility standards of 18 U.S.C. §4202."2 ld. at 39. Nevertheless, the district 

court fowtd that as applied to King's sentence, the parole statute added four years to his 

minimum term of imprisonment, that this increase lacked a rational basis, and, therefore, 

10 U.S.C. §858(a) unconstitutionally discriminated against King "by denying him the same 

parole treatment provided to military prisoners who are not transferred co a federal 

penitentiary." ld. To provide King equal protection, the court concluded that his parole 

eligibility should be calculated pursuant to Army regulations and he was, under thoseregulations, eligible for parole after serving 10 years as opposed to the 14 years he would 

serve under the federal parole statute. Id. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated that his transfer to federal custody will extend his 

period of imprisonment or that he would be eligible for parole at an earlier date if he were 

to remain in a military prison. Cf. 18 U.S.C. §420S(a) (prisoner confined for definite term 

or terms of 30 years or less is eligible for parole after service of one-third of such term or 

terms) and SECNAVINST 5815.3G (Attachment 4 to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss) 

(naval prisoner serving terms of more than 3 but not more than 30 year sentence or 

sentences is eligible for parole after service of one-third of such sentence or sentences). 

2 18 U.S.C. §4202 was repealed by the Comprehensive Crime Conrrol Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-473, 

tit. II, §218(a)(S), 98 Stat. 2027, effective November 1, 1987, for offenses commined after November 1, 

1987, by Pub.L 99-217, §4, 99 Stat. 1728, but applicable for five years after effective date of repeal for 

offenses comrnined before effective dace pursuant to Pub.L. 98-473, tit. II, §23S(a)(1) (B). 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 7
The decisions of the courts in Walker v. Luther, 830 F.2d 1208 (2nd Cir. 1987); 

Moss v. Clark. 698 F.Supp. 640 (E.D.Va. 1988); and Cosgrove v. Thornburgh. 703 F.Supp. 

995 (D.D.C. 1988), which Petitioner also relies on, interpret D.C. Code Ann. §24-209 

(1981). This statute provides that the United States Parole Commission: 

shall have and exercise the same power and authority over prisoners 

convicted in the District of Columbia of crimes against the United States or 

now or hereafter confined in any United States penitentiary or prison (other 

than the penal institutions of the District of Columbia) as is vested in the 

District Board of Parole over prisoners confined in the penal institutions of 

the District of Columbia. 

D.C. Code Ann. §24-209 (l 98l)(emphasis added). These courts interpreted this provision. 

as requiring the Parole Commission to apply District of Columbia parole standards to 

District of Columbia offenders housed in federal prisons. ~ Walker v. Luther, supra at 

1210. The Second Circuit in Walker reasoned that: 

Id. 

this Section [§24-209] does not grant to the Commission the same power 

and authority over D.C. Code offenders that it exercises over U.S. Code 

offenders. Instead, the statute expressly states that the Commission has only 

the same power and authority 'as is vested' in the D.C. Board. Because the 

D.C. Board itself is vested only with the power to apply D.C. parole 

statutes-and not federal parole statutes-the Commission is therefore also 

limited by the specific language of §24-209 to applying D.C. parole law. 

The statute which this Court is asked to interpret in a similar manner-as requiring 

the application of naval parole guidelines to naval prisoners housed in federal prisonshas contrary language, expressly providing that military prisoners transferred to a 

correctional institution not under the control of the armed forces "are subject ro ·the same 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 8
discipline and treatment as persons confined Qr committed .QY the courts of the United 

States." 10 U.S.C. §858(a)(emphasis added). Thus, those cases interpreting District of 

Columbia Code §24-209 are wholly inapplicable to the Petitioner's case. 

The plain language of 10 U.S.C. §858(a) reflects Congress' intent that Petitioner and 

other military prisoners like him who have been transferred to federal custody be subject 

to the federal laws and regulations governing any ocher federal prisoner, including federal 

parole provisions. 

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Respondents' motion to dismiss 

be granted and the case dismissed. As provided by law, any appeaVobjections shall be· 

filed on or before August 30, 1991. This enlargement of the statutory period obviates any 

Motions for Enlargement of Time. 

Entered ·this /b day of August, 1991. 

RONALD L. HO D 

UNlTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 9
CHARLES J. 

v. 

IN mE UNITED STATES DISfRICT couRT FOR mE FILED 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

SEP 18 1991 

ROBERT D. DENNIS CLERK 

U.S. DIST. COURT, WESTERN. DIST. OF OKLA 

BY ,b9 . DEPUTY 

ROBERTS, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) CIV-91-855-B 

) 

) 

U.S. NAVY and U.S. PAROLE ) 

COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

At issue is Pe titioner, Charles J . Roberts ' , objection to 

Magistrate Judge Howland's Report and Recommendation of August 16 , 

1991, recommending that Respondents, U.S. Navy and U.S. Parole 

Commission ' s, motion to d i smiss be granted and Petitioner's federal 

habeas corpus petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim 

for relief. The court has thoroughly examined the arguments 

contained within Pet i tioner's objection to the repo rt and 

recommendation as well as Respondents ' response. Upon careful 

consideration , the court fully adopts the Magistrate's Report and 

Recommendation. Accordingly, Responden ts' motion to dismiss i s 

GRANTED and Petitioner ' s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. 

Dated this / J7ffe day of ~, 1991. 

United ~~~ States Dis trict Judge 

ENTERED lN JUDGEMENl OOCKCT ON 0-l b- c; / 

Appellate Case: 91-6326 Document: 010110242294 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 10