Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06255/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06255-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unirfd Stat Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 2 4 1990 

MANUEL SANABRIA-CIREROL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; 

and T.C. MARTIN, Warden, Federal 

Correctional Institute, El Reno, 

Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6255 

(D.C. No. Civ-89-532-P) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
Petitioner Manuel Sanabria-Cirerol, prose, appeals from the 

district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In a thorough opinion, the 

district court rejected petitioner's claim that the Parole 

Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in establishing his 

parole guidelines as 84-116 months based upon the offenses of 

distributing cocaine, conspiring to distribute cocaine, escaping 

from a federal prison, and transporting illegal aliens. 

Concluding that the petition was without merit, the district court 

then denied petitioner leave to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner's renewed motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis is pending before this court. 

Having carefully reviewed the record in this cause and the 

briefs filed in support of the parties' respective positions, we 

believe the district court properly analyzed petitioner's 

arguments. Accordingly, we deny petitioner's motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis under§ 1915 and dismiss the appeal on 

the merits substantially for the reasons stated in the district 

court's opinion attached hereto. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2 
.-. 

. -· -

IN THE tJNITED STATES . DISTRICT COURJ;OJ L E D 

'l'HE WES'l'ERN DIS'l'RIC'l' OF OKLAHOMA JUN 2 61989 

MANUEL SANABRIA-CIREROL, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

) 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

IIOllllT D, DE~I· OUIJI\ /J 

CL.HK. u. a. DISTRICT CO/Jl:.. B'f __________ _ 

D&PUff 

CIV-89-532-P 

DOCKETED 

Petitioner, an inmate at FCI, El Reno, Oklahoma, proceeding 

prose, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. 12241. Respondents have moved to dismiss. Inasmuch 

as the issues raised may be resolved on the basis of the record 

before the Court, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted·. ~ 

Edgemon v, Lockhart, 768 F.2d 252, 255 (&th cir. 1985), £il:t. 

denied, 475 u.s. 1085 (1986). 

administrative remedies. 

Petitioner has exhausted his 

In support of his claim that the Parole Commission acted 

arbitrarily and capriciously in establishing Petitioner's parole 

guidelines, Petitioner asserts the following: 

Petitioner•, conduct in the scheme involving illegal drugs was a "peripheral role". 'l'he scheme involved 2 

kilos of cocaine. With a salient factor score of 10 

(very good parole risk) petitioner's parole guideline 

range should be 24-36 months pursuant to 28 CFR 2.20. 

Additionally, a period of 0-10 months should be added to 

the guideline range tor the escape from F.C.I., La Tuna 

(a non-secure facility). 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 3 
·-· 

Petitioner also received a .sentence for conspiracy to · transport illegal aliens mandating an addition to the 

guideline range of 0-10 months. 

Petitioner's aggregate parole guideline range should be 

24-56 months and based on the principle of parsimony (salient factor score of 10) the decision should be 

toward the bottom of the guideline range. 

Petitioner was originally sentenced in June, 1981, to a 6-year 

prison sentence and a special parole term of 3 years after being 

convicted in the United states District Court for the District of 

Oregon of distribution of cocaine, using a communication facility 

to facilitate distribution of cocaine, and conspiracy to distribute 

cocaine. While serving that sentence, Petitioner escaped from FCI 

La Tuna, Anthony, Texas, on July 31, 1983, and was arrested on 

January 22, 1987 for the offense of Transporting Aliens. on June 

8, 1987, in the District Court for the District of Arizona, 

Petitioner was sentenced to an additional 5-year consecutive 

sentence for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens upon a plea of 

guilty. According to the presentence report, an illegal sawed-off 

double barr,1 shotgun and automatic pistol ammunition were also 

found at the time of that arrest. 

On September 20, 1988, Petitioner received his initial parole 

hearing. On the cocaine offense, Petitioner was rated a salient 

factor score of 10 and offense severity of Category six for a 

guideline range of 40-52 months on the first offense. Alien 

smuggling and possession of a shotgun was considered behavior 

constituting new criminal conduct in the community while on escape 

and was rated a salient factor score of 6 and an offense severity 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 4 
I 

rating ot Category Five, tor a guideline range · _of 36-48 months. 

Petitioner was next assessed 8-16 months tor the escape from a 

Federal Correctional Institution. The computed aggregate guideline 

range was consequently 84-116 months, and the panel recommended 

that Petitioner continue to expiration of sentence. 

By Notice of Action dated October 5, 1988, the Regional 

commissioner agreed. Petitioner appealed the decision, contesting 

the calculation of the offense severity rating and arguing that he 

had not had the opportunity to rebut the illegal weapons charge 

since the charge had been dismissed in court. By Notice of Action 

dated January 12, 1989, the National Appeals Board affirmed the 

previous decision. 

In beginning its analysis of the Petitioner's claims, the 

Court is mindful that judicial review of Parole Commission 

decisions is very narrow, with the standard of review being whether 

or not there is a clear showing that the Parole Commission Is 

determination was arbitrary or capricious or represented an abuse 

ct discretion. Robinson y. Hadden, 723 F.2d 59 (10th cir. 1983), 

~. denied, 466 u.s. 906 (1984); Nunez-Guardado v, Hadden, 122 

F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir. 1983). It is not the Court's function to 

review the Parole Commission's discretion in making its 

determination. oye v. united states Parole commission, 558 F.2d 

1376 (10th Cir. 1977). Congresa has vested in the Parole 

Commission the power to grant or deny parole and has instructed the 

Commission to promulgate rules and regulations establishing 

· guideline• for the exercise of these powers. 18 u.s.c. 14203 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 5 
• 

·- -

(a) (l). Because of this broad discretion, Courts defer to the 

Commission I a interpretations of i ta regulations, unless these 

interpretations are unreasonable. Timpani y, sizer, 732 F. 2d 1043, 

1047 (2nd Cir. 1984). With these standards in mind, the Court 

begins its analysis of Petitioner's claims. 

Petitioner first argues that he was acting in a peripheral 

role in the 1981 cocaine offense. At the time of the Petitioner's 

. arrest, approximately 2 kilograms ot cocaine were seized at an 

average 92 percent purity, according to the presentence report. 

Under 28 C.F.R. 12.20, Chapter Nina and Subchapter c, 192l(d), a 

Category Six offense severity was appropriate. The regulations 

provide that where the Commission finds that the offender had only 

a peripheral role, the conduct can be graded under the lesser 

category Five. The term peripheral role is defined as: 

14. "A 'peripheral' role in drug offenses refers to 

conduct such as that of a person hired as a deckhand on 

a marijuana boat, a person hired to help offload 

marijuana, a person with no special skills hired as a 

courier of drugs on a commercial airline flight, or a 

person hired as a chauffeur in a drug transaction. This 

definition does not include a person with decision making 

or supervisory authority, persons with relevant special skills (e.g., a boat captain, chemist, or airplane pilot) 

or persons who finance such operations." 

28 C.F.R. 12.20, Chapter Thirteen, Subchapter B, Paragraph 14. 

Under the Parole_ Commission's rules, a peripheral role is not 

presUllled, but must be established by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Parole Commission Rules and Procedures Manual, at 28 

C.F.R. 2.20, Chapter Thirteen, Subchapter B, Item 14. Based upon 

the presentence report on the cocaine offense describing 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 6 
. ' . 

Petitioner's role in setting up and negotiating the transaction, 

the Parole Commission could rationally conclude that Petitioner's 

role was more active than peripheral. 

This court is not to redetermine the Parole Commission's 

findings ot tact de novo, but is to determine whether there is 

"some evidence tending to support the agency's decision." Kramer 

y, Jenkins, 803 F.2d 896, 901 (7th Cir. 1986). The inquiry "is not 

whether the Commission Is decision is supported by the preponderance 

ot the evidence, or even by substantial evidence; the inquiry is 

only whether there is a rational basis in the record for the 

Commission's conclusions embodied in its statement of reasons. 11 

Solomon v, Elsea, 676 F.2d 282, 290 (7th cir. 1982). Accord. 

Misasi v, united states Parole commission, 835 F.2d 754, 758 c1oth 

Cir. 1987). It is the finding of this Court that the Commission's 

decision classifying Petitioner's role as non-peripheral was 

neither arbitrary or capricious, n~r an abuse ot discretion. It 

is further found that there is some evidence to support the 

Commission's decision and, thus, it is upheld. 

Petitioner's escape was considered under the rescission 

guidelines at 28 C.F.R. 12.36. Under that Section, 8-16 months are 

added, except as provided in specific situations not applicable 

here. Petitioner provides no argument in support ot his position 

that he should be assessed 0-10 months for the escape. The Court 

finds that the Parole Commission properly added 8-16· months to the 

Petitioner's guidelines tor his escape. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 7 
.• 

·- ·---

Petitioner's 1987 offense was rated at Category Five severity 

because it involved conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and 

possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Since Petitioner• s salient 

factor score was 6, the parole guidelines for the 1987 offense were 

properly assessed at 36-48 months. Under 28 C.F.R. 12.20, Chapter 

Four, 1402(a), if the transportation of unlawful aliens involves 

detention and a demand for payment, the offense severity is to be 

graded as category Five; otherwise, it is to be graded as Category 

Three. The Court also notes that under 28 C.F.R. §2.20(d) 

"especially mitigating or aggravating circumstances in a particular 

case may justify a decision or a severity rating different from 

that listed." The presentence report for the 1987 offense provides 

a rational basis for the Parole Commission's decision to place the 

offense in Category Five, in that illegal aliens were transported 

'and detained pending payment. Moreover, the Parole commission did 

not act unlawfully in considering c~nduct underlying the dismissed 

firearms possession count in determining Petitioner's offense 

severity rating. The Parole Commission may use all relevant 

information, and specifically it may use the presentence report in 

determining the offense severity rating and the salient factor 

score. 18 u.s.c. 14207(3) and 28 C.F.R. f2.19(c). Thus, the 

Parole Commisai_on was entitled to use the information contained in 

the preaentence report concerning firearms possession in its 

consideration of the overall circumstances of the offense. 

The Parole Commission is prohibited from considering charges 

of which a Petitioner has been acquitted after trial unless 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 8 
.. . . . 

' . ~ 

... 

reliable information not previously introduced is brought forth. 

28 C.F.R. 2.l9(c). However, this prohibition is inapplicable here 

because judicial dismissal of counts pursuant to a plea agreement 

is not equivalent ~o an acquittal after trial tor purposes of 28 

c.F.R. 2.19(c). ,S,§,Jl Perry v, united states Parole commission, 831 

r.2d s11, 813 (8th cir. 1987), .£In. denied._ u.s. _, 10a 

s.ct. 1230 (1988). The Tenth Circuit has held that the Parole 

Commission may consider evidence concerning counts dismissed as a 

result of a plea agreement, unless it would violate the terms or 

intent ot the plea agreement. Robinson y. Hadden, 723 F.2d at 62-

631 Nunez-Guardado y, Hadden, 122 F.2d at 622. Petitioner does not 

assert and there is no basis from which the court can conclude that 

an agreement not to consider the possession ot a firearm was a 

- specific part of the plea agreement. Thus, the Court does not find 

that the offense severity rating determination was arbitrary or 

capricious. ,S,§,Jl ~Peaky, Pet~oysky, 734 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 

1984). 

Further, the Court notes the information concerning the 

firearms possession was contained in the presentence report which 

Petitioner had the opportunity to challenge at the time of 

aantencing, as well as at his parole hearing. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpua ia without merit and accordingly 

judgment will issue denying the Petition tor Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that an appeal 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 9 
-. . ' - .. ·. -

would be frivol_ous and leave to proceed on appeal ;J.n fonna pauperis 

is -denied. 

Entered this dk~ day of June, 1989. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-6255 Document: 01019972064 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 10