Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01262/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01262-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STANLEY JAMISON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ANTHONY BELASKI, Warden and UNITED 

STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

FILED 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 4 1 90 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1262 

(D. Colorado) 

(88-M-1939) 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

* 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: 89-1262 Document: 010110036147 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Jamison appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas 

corpus. 

Mr. Jamison was convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to 15 

years imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5010(c) of the now 

repealed Youth Corrections Act. He was paroled in June 1985, 

which parole was revoked in June 1986. In July 1987 Mr. Jamison 

was again paroled. In October 1987, a parole violator warrant was 

issued charging Mr. Jamison with failure to submit monthly 

supervision reports, failure to report arrest, leaving the 

district without permission, failure to report change in address 

and failure to report to the probation officer as directed. He 

was also charged with new criminal conduct, possession of 

dangerous or habit forming drugs. 

A revocation hearing was held and the panel recommended 

revocation of parole and continuation of presumptive parole after 

service of 40 months. The panel in addition to finding the five 

violations also found Mr. Jamison had possessed, with intent to 

distribute, between 1 and 9.9 grams of free base cocaine. Mr. 

Jamison exhausted his administrative remedies and then commenced 

this action. 

Mr. Jamison contended before the district court the decision 

of the parole commission was based on insufficient evidence and he 

was deprived of a neutral hearing body because the hearing panel 

included the case analyst who had requested the issuance of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1262 Document: 010110036147 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 2 
parole violator warrant. The district court stated: 

The evidence relied upon by the Parole Commission is a 

police report of a search of the petitioner at the 

county jail after his arrest following an automobile 

accident. The petitioner contends that the cocaine and 

money were "planted" on him by some other persons. The 

petitioner does not otherwise deny the facts reported. 

In this court's view, the Parole Commission was within 

its authority in determining that the police report 

constituted sufficient evidence of the violation. It is 

also noted that five other violations were found. The 

challenge to the composition of the hearing panel is 

inadequate to support the relief requested here. 

Order of Dismissal, August 7, 1989. 

On appeal Mr. Jamison argues that as the state court charge 

of possession of dangerous drugs had been dismissed, the parole 

commission abused its discretion 

preponderance of the evidence. 

as there could be no 

We do not agree. The parole 

commission has the authority to revoke a person's parole if it 

finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has violated 

his parole by engaging in new criminal conduct. 18 u.s.c. 

§ 4214(d). The parole commission's decision should be upheld 

unless arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Misasi 

v. United States Parole Comm'n, 835 F.2d 754, 758 (10th Cir. 

1987). The commission must consider all available and relevant 

information and this includes police reports. The parole 

commission is not barred from finding that petitioner engaged in 

new criminal conduct even though the local court dismissed the 

charge against him. Robinson v. Benson, 570 F.2d 920, 923 (10th 

Cir. 1978). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1262 Document: 010110036147 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 3 
J 

Mr. Jamison next contends the parole commission violated his 

due process rights as his case analyst both recommended the 

issuance of the parole violation warrant and served as one of the 

two hearing examiners. The case analyst did not supervise Mr. 

Jamison's parole nor report his alleged parole violations. 

Neither did he decide that probable cause existed for the alleged 

violations. 

We review this ruling de novo. Mr. Jamison contends he was 

denied a neutral hearing body. In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 

319 (1976), the Supreme Court outlined three factors to consider 

in determining whether the flexible concepts of due 

These 

process have 

been satisfied in a particular case. factors are the 

private interest implicated, the risk of 

and the governmental interest in 

an erroneous decision, 

terms of fiscal and 

administrative burdens. We have weighed these factors and under 

the facts of this case conclude that Mr. Jamison was not denied a 

neutral hearing body. The parole commission cannot delegate to 

hearing examiners the power to render decisions regarding parole. 

The recommendations of a hearing panel become effective only upon 

the regional commissioner's approval. 28 C.F.R. § 2.23(d). Both 

hearing panel members recommended a preponderance of evidence 

finding and both recommended revoking parole and continuing him to 

a presumptive parole after serving 40 months. Mr. Jamison was not 

denied due process. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1262 Document: 010110036147 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 4 
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1262 Document: 010110036147 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 5