Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06131/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06131-0/pdf.json

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

---

AUG 171992 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBEH'i L. L{G·ECYPl'." 

Clerk . -=--

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALFRED MONTOYA, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

No. 92-6131 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-1291-C) 

(W.D . Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 panel. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(e); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus which challenged the actions of the United States 

Parole Commission. Petitioner, Mr. Montoya, contended he was 

*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: 92-6131 Document: 010110276736 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 1
denied his right to counsel in the proceedings before the 

Commission and that the Commission acted without good cause in the 

establishment of his presumptive parole date. This case is an 

outgrowth of Mr. Montoya's previous appeal of a similar case in 

Montoya v. United States Parole Comm'n, 908 F.2d 635 (10th Cir. 

1990) (Montoya I). 

A divided court in Montoya I reversed and remanded a 

Commission decision setting Mr. Montoya's presumptive parole date 

above the guidelines because the majority of the court believed 

the record did not support the Commission's conclusion that Mr. 

Montoya's history of assaultive, aggressive behavior made him a 

serious parole risk. This court vacated the Commission's decision 

and remanded with instructions that "further proceedings it may 

conduct be consonant with the views expressed herein." 

The keystone of Mr. Montoya's present petition and his appeal 

to this court is a narrow view of this court's prior action. 

Disregarding the fact that our vacation of the Commission's 

decision and order effectively returned the parole proceeding to 

its beginning, Mr. Montoya seizes upon language in footnote five 

of the court's opinion and argues statements contained in the 

footnote circumscribed the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

Mr. Montoya has misunderstood both the nature and content of 

that footnote, and his approach to this case has therefore been 

off track since its beginning. The footnote was nothing more than 

an observation that if the Commission were to decide that Mr. 

Montoya's criminal history and the length of his commitment-free 

period formed a basis for departing from the guidelines, the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6131 Document: 010110276736 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 2
Commission "should" explain how those factors have a bearing on 

Mr. Montoya's parole prognosis. Montoya I, 908 F.2d at 640. 

Thus, the plain language of the footnote is suggestive and not 

mandatory. More importantly,_ it in no way limits the Commission's 

right and authority to reconsider Mr. Montoya's case as though the 

first proceeding had not occurred. 

The only effect of this court's opinion in Montoya I is to 

establish, as a matter of law, the previous reasons relied upon by 

the Commission to conclude Mr. Montoya has a history of assaultive 

and aggressive behavior are insufficient. On this holding, we 

ordered the Commission to begin its proceedings again. 1 Thus, the 

premise upon which Mr. Montoya has based his entire habeas case is 

faulty. We therefore agree with the analysis of the district 

court. 

Because of Mr. Montoya's belief and insistence that the 

Commission disobeyed the import of footnote five in Montoya I, we 

have examined the record on that subject. This review is guided 

by the fact that we did not prohibit the Commission from referring 

to Mr. Montoya's criminal history in determining his presumptive 

parole date, as Mr. Montoya believes. Instead, we suggested the 

Commission explain how that history affected Mr. Montoya's parole 

prognosis. That explanation was made. 

Mr. Montoya argues with the Commission's characterization of 

his drug dealing activities, but that characterization is not 

inconsistent with the record made before the Commission. We 

1 That can be the only result from a mandate ordering "further 

proceedings." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6131 Document: 010110276736 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 3
therefore have no basis for concluding the Commission has violated 

our mandate in any way. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for the reasons 

stated in its order of March 24, 1992. 

motions in this court are DENIED as moot. 

Appellant's pending 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6131 Document: 010110276736 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 4