Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01388/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

Uaited States Court of Appeals ·r enth Cir,:-,1:r 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP a- 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

BILL HOLT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

No. 88-1388 

(D.C. Nos. CR 85-18, 

CIV 87-358 JP) 

(D. New Mexico) 

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. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying 

appellant Bill Holt's petition to vacate, set aside, or correct a 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The only issue on appeal 

is whether the district court erred in determining that 

section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act does not apply to 

appellant, whose presumptive parole date was May 31, 1989. The 

district court determined that because appellant would be released 

* 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: 88-1388 Document: 01019973465 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 1 
prior to November 1, 1992, the date past which prisoners cannot be 

in prison without having been sentenced under the new guidelines, 

he will not be in the jurisdiction of the Parole Commission; 

therefore, section 235(b)(3) does not apply to him. We agree. 

Section 235(b)(3) requires that a prisoner be in custody, 

not on parole. See Lewis v. Martin, No. 88-2710 (10th Cir. July 

24, 1989). Therefore, if appellant was released on his 

presumptive parole date, then he is not in the custody of the 

Parole Commission and, therefore, he is not eligible to be 

resentenced under the new guidelines. 

We recognize the possibility that appellant was not released 

on his presumptive parole date. If that is the case, then his 

petition is premature because we have no way of knowing if he will 

be in prison on November 1, 1992. If appellant does find himself 

in prison under the current sentence on that date, he will have 

the right to petition the district court to compel the Parole 

Commission to establish a release date in accordance with the new 

guidelines if it has not already done so. 

In any event, appellant's appeal must be dismissed because he 

is either out on parole and no longer in the jurisdiction of the 

parole commission, or he is currently in prison and his petition 

is premature. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district 

court dismissing Holt's petition. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 88-1388 Document: 01019973465 Date Filed: 09/08/1989 Page: 2