Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03104/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03104-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter Copeland
Appellant
Robert L. Matthews
Appellee
United States Parole Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of AppeaJs 

Tench Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT ~ 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

WALTER COPELAND, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; and 

ROBERT L. MATTHEWS, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 90-3104 

(D.C. No. 88-3284-R) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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 is an appeal by Walter- Copeland-- from---the-· order of the 

district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Copeland contends that the district court erred in finding that 

the Parole Commission did not impermissibly double count certain 

of his convictions in extending his release date beyond that 

recommended by the parole guidelines, 28 C.F.R. § 2.20. We 

affirm. 

* 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: 90-3104 Document: 010110053470 Date Filed: 10/03/1990 Page: 1 
... 

The Parole Commission departed above the parole guidelines 

range because they found Copeland was: 

a poorer risk than indicated by your salient factor 

score in that: you were under parole supervision from a 

previous bank robbery and you had previously been 

returned as a parole violator on the original sentence. 

Copeland contends that the Commission double counted the bank 

robberies in justifying its decision. We disagree. The salient 

factor score merely accounts for the fact of conviction, it does 

not consider the nature of the underlying conviction. We have 

previously upheld Commission action departing above the guidelines 

where the offenses showed repeated violations of the same nature. 

See Allen Y...!.. Hadden, 738 F.2d 1102, 1105 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Copeland's case is essentially indistinguishable from Allen. 

Accordingly, we find that the Commission did not impermissibly 

double count the bank robbery convictions but rather weighed the 

similar nature of the offenses in its decision. Such weighing is 

permissible. Moreover, although the salient factor score took 

into consideration whether Copeland -was- on parole at -the time of 

conviction, it did not count the fact that Copeland had twice 

violated parole. We conclude there was no double counting. 

The district court did not err in denying the petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Because we find that Copeland has not 

advanced a reasoned argument on either the law or facts in support 

of his claim, see Coppedge Y...!.. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962), 

we DENY the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS the 

appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3104 Document: 010110053470 Date Filed: 10/03/1990 Page: 2