Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06082/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06082-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

• 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE.Al.!!lited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THOMAS FREDERICK KEEHNER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION) 

and T.C. MARTIN, Warden, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

AUG 1 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6082 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-2120-W) 

(W. Dist. of Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This prose petitioner, Thomas Keehner, was convicted of bank 

robbery in 1971 and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. He has 

been paroled twice and has had his parole revoked twice. After 

the last parole revocation proceeding, Keehner petitioned the 

district court for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the Parole 

Commission arbitrarily and capriciously calculated his sentence by 

* 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: 90-6082 Document: 010110041005 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 1 
,I '' 

exceeding the parole guidelines, and by erroneously calculating 

his "release date." The district court denied his petition and 

this appeal followed. 

Keehner presents the same arguments to us on appeal that he 

raised below. As the district court correctly found, judicial 

review of the decisions of the Parole Commission is extremely 

limited. The Commission has broad discretion to determine parole 

eligibility dates, and its decisions will not be reversed absent 

an abuse of discretion a.mounting to arbitrariness or capriciousness. Misasi v. United States Parole Commission, 835 F.2d 754, 

758 (10th Cir. 1987); Resnick v. United States Parole Commission, 

835 F.2d 1297 (10th Cir. 1987). The Commission need only have a 

rational basis appearing in the record for its conclusions. 

Misasi, 835 F.2d at 758. Furthermore, the Commission may, for 

"good cause," go outside its guidelines provided a prisoner is 

furnished with written notice stating with particularity the 

reasons for the determination and a summary of the information 

upon which it relied. 18 u.s.c. § 4206; Maddox v. United States 

Parole Commission, 821 F.2d 997, 1000 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Applying these principles, the district court concluded that 

the Commission acted well within its discretion in fixing 

Keehner's sentence and that a rational basis appeared in the 

record for its decision to extend his incarceration beyond the 

guidelines range. For substantially the reasons set forth in the 

district court's Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6082 Document: 010110041005 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 2 
~----.,1r. . .;,, -..T~- . - ---

J 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6082 Document: 010110041005 Date Filed: 08/17/1990 Page: 3