Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02372/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02372-0/pdf.json

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

---

~-------=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-:.:.:.:.-:.-:.-:.-:.-:.-:.-:.-:.-::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.'::,::.::.-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--::.-=--=--=--=--~ -----=====~~ 

PI LED 

United States O,urt of AppeQis 

'if'nth Ci~-:11. tt 

FEB 12 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APPEALS 

JAMES D. LANG, JR., 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

T. C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2372 

(D.C. Civil No. 87-2482-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and McWILLIAMS, 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by a 

federal prisoner who asserts that he is being held beyond the 

Parole Commission guidelines which were not applied properly. The 

Parole Commission determined that the petitioner be held until the 

*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: 88-2372 Document: 01019963045 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 1 
expiration of his sentence. The trial court denied relief. No 

hearing was held. 

Petitioner had been convicted on several counts for mail 

fraud. The sentences included parole and probation. The parole 

period was completed but the five-year probation was not. While 

on this probation petitioner was enjoined from engaging in an 

abusive tax shelter activity under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7408. 

United States v. Lang, CIV-84-3160-W (W.D. Okla.). The court 

there found that petitioner's statements were false as to whether 

a substantial tax deduction could be based on backdated documents. 

No criminal charges were filed. 

Petitioner's probation was then revoked based on the tax 

shelter activity and he was sentenced to five years in prison. 

When probation was revoked petitioner was serving the probation 

part of a complex sentence as defined in the regulations. 

On the administrative appeal of petitioner following 

revocation, the National Board reduced the severity rating, and 

the guidelines as to time were thus lowered to a range of 20 to 26 

months. This resulted in the ultimate decision as to release 

date, which was affirmed by the Board, and was above the 

guidelines. The Board also found on the appeal that exceeding the 

guidelines was warranted and that petitioner was not as good a 

risk as his salient factor score would indicate by reason of his 

continued fraudulent activities. 

The trial court found, and we agree, that the Parole 

Commission, on appeal, applied the proper standards and guidelines 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2372 Document: 01019963045 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 2 
for such circumstances (28 C.F.R. 2.21) in considering only the 

probation offense when calculating severity. 

We also agree with the trial court that the Commission could 

consider on the appeal whether or not to go above the guidelines. 

Arias v. United States Parole Commission, 648 F.2d 196 (3d Cir.). 

The due process and statutory provisions for exceeding the 

guidelines were met. See Allen v. Hadden, 738 F.2d 1102 (10th 

Cir.), and Sotelo v. Hadden, 721 F.2d 700 (10th Cir.). No doublecounting on salient factors resulted from the separate 

consideration of the activity resulting in probation revocation, 

and all was within the Commission's discretion. Allen v. Hadden. 

The petitioner urges that the activity causing the revocation 

of probation was a violation of administrative regulations and was 

not a criminal offense. However, as the trial court concluded, 

this is not a factor. The Commission may make a decision beyond 

its guidelines for good cause if the prisoner is provided 

particularized reasons (28 U.S.C. § 4206(c)) as here. The trial 

court further stated: 

"Under 28 C.F.R. 2.21, the Parole Commission 

may make an independent finding of new 

criminal conduct. The Court concludes that 

this finding is likewise not limited to crimes 

that were charged or adjudicated offenses. 

See Young~ U.S. Parole Commission, 682 F.2d 

[1105] at 1108 [5th Cir. 1982]; Mullen v. U.S. 

Parole Commission, 756 F.2d 74, 75 (8thCi_r __ _ 

1985) (independent finding of new criminal 

conduct unaffected by dismissal of criminal 

charges arising from same conduct). 

"In the instant case there is a factual basis 

in the record from which the Parole Commission 

could reasonably conclude that petitioner was 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2372 Document: 01019963045 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 3 
an actual and agg r essive participant in the 

promotion of a fraudulent tax shelter. The 

Commission's conclusion that the probation 

offense behavior was an attempted fraud upon 

the United States is a rational one." 

The petitioner also urges that he should have received credit 

for time spent on probation as is on parole (28 C.F.R. 2.20(j)(2). 

This is however not the law. The regulations do not authorize 

that a probation revocation in these circumstances be treated as a 

parole revocation for all purposes. Martinez v. Day, 450 F. Supp. 

803 (W.D. Okla.). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Enter~d for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2372 Document: 01019963045 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 4