Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01244/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marty C. Anderson
Appellee
Tyrell D. Erwin
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan

Lebedoff, Chief Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1244

___________

Tyrell D. Erwin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Marty C. Anderson, *

Sued as Marty Anderson, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 1, 2004

Filed: December 7, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Tyrell Erwin appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 habeas petition. In 1985 Erwin was sentenced to 25 years, 7 months, and 10

days imprisonment, following his conviction for drug, racketeering, and firearm

crimes, and in May 1999 he was paroled. In December 2001, while traveling through

Iowa with another convicted felon, Erwin was stopped by police and subsequently

Appellate Case: 04-1244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2004 Entry ID: 1841566 
-2-

arrested and charged with possession of drugs; the drug charge against Erwin in Iowa

was later dropped. The United States Parole Commission (the Commission), after a

hearing, found that Erwin had violated his parole by traveling outside his district of

supervision without permission, associating with a person who had a criminal record,

and committing a new crime--drug possession. The Commission revoked Erwin’s

parole and ordered that his sentence be continued to expiration. In his section 2241

petition, Erwin alleged that the Commission abused its discretion by finding that he

had committed a new crime and thus revoking his parole and continuing his sentence

to expiration. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and denied Erwin’s

petition.

The district court was correct in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review

Erwin’s claim, because Erwin challenged a substantive determination by the

Commission. See Wright v. United States Parole Comm’n, 948 F.2d 433, 435 (8th

Cir. 1991) (Commission’s determination that habeas petitioner had committed a crime

was substantive and thus unreviewable), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1009 (1992); Jones

v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d 1178, 1183 (8th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2004 Entry ID: 1841566