Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03131/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03131-0/pdf.json

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

---

l 

GARY 

v. 

U.S. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Co!1rt <?f Ap~~\9 Tenth CL'rcu1t 

SEP O 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER. 

L. WILSON, 

Petitioner-Apellant, 

PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No . . 91-3131 

(D.C. No. 89-3165-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

Gary L. Wilson appeals the district court's dismissal of his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. We grant Mr. Wilson's motion 

for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees 

because we conclude that he sets forth a rational argument on the 

law and facts in support of some of the issues raised on appeal. 

See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989); Yellen v. 

*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: 91-3131 Document: 010110089441 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 1 
( 

l Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The district court denied Mr. Wilson certification to proceed 

in forma pauperis, holding that his allegations were frivolous and 

not in good faith. Although we disagree that Mr. Wilson's 

arguments are -frivolous and therefore grant him leave to proceed, 

we affirm the lower court's dismissal of the habeas petition 

substantially for the reasons set out in the court's order. With 

respect to whether the Commission's actions violated the ex post 

facto clause, we need not decide whether the revised parole 

guidelines that were applied to Mr. Wilson's sentence are "laws" 

within the scope of ex post facto jurisprudence, see generally 

Yamamoto v. United States Parole Comm'n, 794 F.2d 1295, 1297-1301 

(8th Cir. 1986), because, as the district court correctly pointed 

out, even if they were, their retroactive application did not 

adversely affect Mr. Wilson, see Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 

430 (1987); Devine v. New Mexico Dept. of Corrections, 866 F.2d 

339, 341 (10th Cir. 1989). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3131 Document: 010110089441 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 2