Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01306/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01306-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell Prows
Appellant
United States Parole Commission
Appellee
Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Englewood, Colorado
Appellee

Document Text:

PILED 

United States C.OUrt of Appeals 

1'entb Circuit 

ORITED STATES COURT OF APP~ 

FOR TBB TE1ffll CIRCUIT 

MAR 4 1991 -

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DARRELL PROWS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION, ENGLEWOOD, 

COLORADO; and UNITED STATES 

PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1306 

(D.C. No. 90-M-1638) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER ARD JODGIIElft'* 

Before LOGAN, IIOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

*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: 90-1306 Document: 010110031063 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 1 
• 

Darrell Prows, a federal prisoner, appeals from the denial of 

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

S 2241. Petitioner alleged that the parole connnission failed to 

properly set his parole eligibility date based upon the sentencing 

court's implied sentence under former 18 U.S.C. S 4205(b)(2) and 

upon S 235(b) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Petitioner 

also claimed he is entitled to habeas relief because of the 

substandard conditions of the law library at FCI Englewood. The 

petition was sunnnarily denied, and this appeal followed. We 

affirm. 

Petitioner first argues the trial court erred by concluding 

he was attacking his sentence. To the contrary, he maintains he 

is not attacking his sentence but the way in which the sentence is 

being carried out by the Executive Branch. The distinction is 

facile, but not a persuasive argument for reversal. 

Petitioner's allegations about the sentence he received are 

mere unsupported hypotheses. He did not attach a copy of the 

judgment and connnitment to support his argument the trial judge 

intended he be given a S 4205(b)(2) sentence. Moreover, 

petitioner seems to be arguing that the sentencing judge's remarks 

from the bench were ambiguous; therefore, a (b)(2) sentence should 

be presumed. When an oral sentence is ambiguous, however, the 

sentence is determined by the written judgment and connnitment. 

United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1450 (10th Cir. 1987). 

While his collateral argument on S 235 is not entirely clear, 

it would appear to have been resolved in Lewis v. Martin, 880 F.2d 

288 (10th Cir. 1989). In Lewis we held that S 235 did not mandate 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1306 Document: 010110031063 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 2 
• 

the setting of a parole release date for an inmate whose maximum 

sentence exceeded five years beyond the effective date of the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Petitioner claims that S 235(b)(3) 

"entitles me to parole eligibility at this time," but he asserted 

no facts in his petition to support that bald claim. 

Finally, petitioner's allegations that the inmate law library 

"makes it almost impossible for anyone to do effective legal work" 

do not rise to the level of a deprivation requiring his release 

under S 1241. While such allegations may give rise to other 

remedies, habeas corpus is not among them because the library 

conditions have no bearing on the validity of his custody. Cf. 

Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980), (habeas 

corpus will not lie to permit an inmate access to a law library), 

cert. denied, 450 U.S. 984 (1981). Unless petitioner's right of 

access to the courts is barred by the absence of a means for legal 

assistance, the quality of existing facilities alone does not 

constitute a constitutional issue. Id. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1306 Document: 010110031063 Date Filed: 03/04/1991 Page: 3