Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02710/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02710-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE" TENTH. CIRCUIT·- ... · ... 

JAMES WILLIAM LEWIS, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 

) 

TOMMY C. MARTIN, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appel lee. ) 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

,JUL 2 4 1989 

RO;BERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

88-2710 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. 88-641-W) 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Donald v. Morano of Chicago, Illinois, for Petitioner-Appellant. 

William s. Price, United States Attorney, and H. Lee Schmidt, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for RespondentAppellee. 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

~EYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 1 
Petitioner James William Lewis, a federal prisoner, filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1982) 

in the Western District of Oklahoma. The district court denied 

the writ, and we now affirm.l 

I . 

Petitioner Lewis' claims bring before this court the question 

of the parole status of prisoners sentenced before the effective 

date of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 under the transition 

provisions of that Act. Lewis was sentenced on December 13, 1982, 

to a term of 20 years in federal prison. Pursuant to 18 u.s.c. 

§ 4205(a) (repealed effective Nov. 1, 1987), the sentencing court 

ordered that Lewis should not become eligible for parole before 

serving one third of his sentence. The Parole Commission computed 

Lewis' prison time under the guidelines to be 40-52 months. 

Because he was sentenced under section 4205(a), however, the 

Commission set his release date as August 27, 1989, giving Lewis a 

prison term of approximately 80 months. In his petition and on 

appeal, Lewis claims that section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, § 235(b)(3), 98 Stat. 1837, 

1 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. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 2 
2032 (1984) (1984 Act), 2 requires the Conunission to set his 

release within the guideline range despite the requirement of 

section 4205(a), and that he is therefore entitled to inunediate 

release. 

II. 

Section 235 of the 1984 Act abolishes the Parole Conunission, 

but mandates a five-year phase out for the Conunission from the 

effective date of the Act. The original section 235(b)(3) states 

as follows: 

The United States Parole Conunission shall set a 

release date, for an individual who will be in its 

jurisdiction the day before the expiration of five years 

after the effective date of this Act, that is within the 

range that applies to the prisoner under the applicable 

parole guideline. A release date set pursuant to this 

paragraph shall be set early enough to permit consideration of an appeal of the release date, in accordance 

with Parole Conunission procedures, before the expiration 

of five years following the effective date of this Act. 

Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 235(b)(3), 98 Stat. 1837, 2032 (1984). 

The five-year period began to run on November 1; 1987. See 

Lightsey v. Kastner, 846 F.2d 329, 332 (5th Cir. 1988); Romanov. 

Luther, 816 F.2d 832, 837-39 (2d Cir. 1987). On December 7, 1987, 

section 235(b)(3) was amended to delete the clause requiring the 

2 The entire Sentencing Reform Act has been codified at 18 

u.s.c. § 3551, et~ (Supp. V 1987). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 3 
Commission to set release dates within the guideline range. See 

Sentencing Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-182, § 2(b)(2), 101 Stat. 126 

(1987) (1987 amendment). The amended section 235(b)(3) requires 

the Commission to set release dates "pursuant to section 4206 of. 

Title 18 United States Code," which permits release dates outside 

the guideline range. 

Lewis claims the original section 235(b)(3) entitled him to 

immediate release because he was already incarcerated beyond his 

guideline range as of its effective date. He further argues that 

the 1987 amendment, if applied to allow the Commission to set his 

release date outside the guideline range, deprives him of a 

liberty interest without substantive due process. We need not 

reach the second issue because we hold that the original 

section 235(b)(3) did not give Lewis an entitlement to release 

within the guideline range. 

Lewis interprets the statute as requiring the Parole 

Commission to enter release dates within the guideline range for 

all prisoners sentenced under the old laws whose maximum sentences 

run to or beyond November 1, 1992. His interpretation is contrary 

to judicial precedent, the structure of the relevant statutes, and 

common sense. The effect of section 235(b)(3) was discussed in 

detail by the Second Circuit in Romano, 816 F.2d at 837-39. The 

court· was faced there with the same interpretation argued to us in 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 4 
this case. The court rejected it for a number of reasons, which 

we find persuasive. 

It is evident from the entirety of section 235 that subsection (b)(3) is a "winding-up" provision to ensure that the 

Parole Commission will set release dates for all prisoners 

sentenced under the old statutes before it goes out of business on 

November 1, 1992. See id. at 839-40. The subsection does not 

require the Commission to take immediate action on the release 

date of any prisoner. Rather, by its own terms, the subsection 

requires the Commission to set a release date for any prisoner 

within its jurisdiction sufficiently before November 1, 1992, to 

allow him time to appeal the decision. Lewis is scheduled to be 

paroled in August 1989. 

Lewis vigorously argues that the phrase "in [the Commission's] jurisdiction the day before the expiration of five years 

after the effective date of this Act," means that section 

235(b)(3) applies to any person who will be in prison or out on 

parole on that day. He argues that "jurisdiction" should have the 

same meaning here as in 18 u.s.c. § 4210(b), which provides that 

the "jurisdiction of the Commission over the parolee shall 

terminate no later than the date of the expiration of the maximum 

term or terms for which he was sentenced." Since Lewis' maximum 

term extends well beyond 1992, he contends he will be under the 

jurisdiction of the Commission on November 1, 1992. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 5 
The argument, while formalistically appealing, defies the 

conunon sense reading of section 235(b)(3). If Lewis were correct, 

section 235(b)(3) would be transformed from a mere phase-out 

provision into a sweeping decision to grant earlier release dates 

to large numbers of federal prisoners currently serving time 

beyond their guideline-reconunended release dates. Nothing in the 

entire 1984 Act other than this choice of the word "jurisdiction" 

justifies this conclusion. The relative unimportance of this 

choice was persuasively discussed by the court in Romano: 

As Justice Frankfurter once observed, the term 

"'jurisdiction'" is "a verbal coat of too many colors." 

United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 

33, 39, 73 S. Ct. 67, 70, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952)(dissenting 

opinion). Its meaning varies with its context, and it 

is evident that Congress intended different meanings 

when it used the term iri 18 u.s.c. § 4210(b) and in 

subsection 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act. The 

usage in section 4210 refers explicitly to the power of 

the Parole Commission "over the parolee." That section 

assures that the Conunission will retain power to 

supervise a parolee and to revoke his parole for 

violation of the conditions of parole. Subsection 

235(b)(3) serves the entirely different purpose of 

requiring the Conunission to set a parole release .date 

for a specified category of individuals. Obviously, the 

task of setting a parole release date has no application 

to those already on parole, though still under the 

Conunission's supervisory jurisdiction. Subsection 

235(b)(3) concerns those within the jurisdiction of the 

Conunission in the sense of remaining in prison. 

816 F.2d at 840-41. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 6 
Lewis points to the legislative history of the 1984 Act, and 

correctly notes that Congress expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the parole guideline system. Congress' solution to 

this problem was the abolition of the Parole Commission system and 

the implementation of new sentencing guidelines. Its solution was 

not, as Lewis argues, to statutorily order all prisoners sentenced 

under the old system to be released within their guideline ranges. 

Subsection 235(b)(3) is obviously designed to deal with 

a very specific problem -- the need to be sure a parole 

date is established for all those who will still be in 

prison the day before the Parole Commission ceases to 

exist. For that limited group, Congress chose not to 

require service of their maximum sentences but instead 

to afford them release on parole within their applicable 

parole guideline ranges. In all likelihood there will 

be a relatively small number of prisoners sentenced 

under the current system and still in custody on 

October 30, 1992, the day before the end of the 

transition period. Only that group, of which 

[petitioner] is not now likely to be a member, will 

benefit from subsection 235(b)(3). 

Id. at 841. 

As we have noted, Lewis' release date has been set as 

August 27, 1989. As the facts of this case now stand, he will not 

be in prison on November 1, 1992. Section 235(b)(3) consequently 

does not apply to him. See Romano at 816 F.2d 840-41; Kele v. 

Carlson, 854 F.2d 338, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 7 
Hackett v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 851 F.2d 127, 132-33 (6th Cir. 

1987) (per curiam). 

The judgment below is therefore AFFIRMED. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 88-2710 Document: 01019568409 Date Filed: 07/24/1989 Page: 8