Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02101/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02101-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

.. 

PltBO 

Uaited Sti'48 t,1urt 01 Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ·renth Cfr:<:Uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; 

T.C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 101989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2101 

(D.C. No. 87-155-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.**. 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This matter is before us on respondents' motion to dismiss 

this appeal as moot. The motion is denied. 

* 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: 87-2101 Document: 010110035106 Date Filed: 04/10/1989 Page: 1 
Petitioner, who was initially convicted in 1970, was 

transferred to pre-release status at a halfway house in June of 

1984. In October, he was released on parole. The following day 

he was indicted on various drug charges, the underlying events 

having occurred in June and July. 

In April of 1985, petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. 

Based on this conviction, in November of 1985 respondent United 

States Parole Commission rescinded his parole under 28 C.F.R. 

§ 2.30. Petitioner appealed the determination, alleging in part 

that he was entitled to a parole revocation hearing, including the 

right to counsel. 

Petitioner also filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United · States District Court for the 

District of Colorado. In July of 1986, the motion was grant~d and 

the judgment and commitment vacated on the ground that petitioner 

did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel at 

trial and the "possibility that the defendant would have been 

found not guilty with representation by counsel." 

In September, the Commission conducted a "new information" 

hearing, 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(a), affirming its previous determination 

to continue petitioner's incarceration to the expiration of his 

sentence (sixty-six months). The National Appeals Board modified 

the Regional Commissioner's determination based on a reassessment 

of the amount of drugs involved to thirty-four months. 

The complaint in this case was filed shortly before the 

National Appeals Board issued its decision. 

2 

The court allowed 

Appellate Case: 87-2101 Document: 010110035106 Date Filed: 04/10/1989 Page: 2 
The complaint in this case was filed shortly before the 

National Appeals Board issued its decision. The court allowed 

petitioner to amend his complaint in which he claimed entitlement 

to a full parole revocation hearing, his immediate release, and 

expungement of his record with respect to the 1985 conviction. 

The district court held that petitioner was entitled to a 

revocation hearing with counsel, but that petitioner had failed to 

establish entitlement to expungement of his record. The 

Commission then advanced his parole date and released petitioner 

to a Community Treatment Center. It affirmatively appears that no 

revocation hearing was held. 

Under the particular circumstances surrounding this case, 

petitioner, who was not represented by counsel either at trial or 

at any proceedings before the Parole Commission, is entitled to 

further review of his claimed entitlement to expungement from his 

records of the parole violation based on the vacated conviction. 

Instead of providing him a revocation hearing as ordered by the 

district court, the Commission simply advanced his release date. 

Because the conviction has been vacated and the Commission has 

never afforded petitioner the opportunity to present his issues to 

the Commission with the assistance of counsel, we conclude he is 

entitled to further consideration by the district court of his 

claimed right to expungement. See Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F.2d 

698, 707 (7th Cir. 1987). 

The appeal insofar as 

dismissed as moot. The 

it requested immediate release is 

judgment of the United States District 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2101 Document: 010110035106 Date Filed: 04/10/1989 Page: 3 
• I 

, Court for the Western District of Oklahoma as to expungement is 

vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. 

DISMISSED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-2101 Document: 010110035106 Date Filed: 04/10/1989 Page: 4