Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03310/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03310-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karey B. Coleman
Appellant
United States Parole Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KAREY B. COLEMAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant 

v. No. 89-3310 

FILED 

Uoiced States Court of Appeals 

T~nth Circuit 

MAY l 1 90 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D. Kan. 88-3108-0) 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Be fore MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has de t ermined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist t h e determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitt ed without oral argument. 

Appellant's arguments on appeal are not frivolous as they 

present rational arguments on the law and facts which support the 

issues rais ed . See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(196 2). Accordingly, appellant's motion to proceed on appeal 

without prepayment of costs and fees is granted. 

* This o rder and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, o r used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except · 

for purp o ses of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res j ud icata, or col lateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3310 Document: 01019967277 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 1 
·• 

On March 25, 1988, appellant Karey B. Coleman filed a 

petition for habeas corpus in the District of Kansas challenging 

the United States Parole Commission's offense severity rating and 

t he Commission's decision to extend appellant's confinement beyond 

the term recommended by the parole guidelines. On October 13, 

1989, appellant moved to disqualify Chief Judge Earl E. O'Connor, 

the district judge assigned to rule on appellant's petition for 

habeas corpus. On November 6, 1989, the district court denied all 

relief requested in appellant's habeas corpus petition and 

d i smissed the petition. However, the district court never ruled 

on appellant's disqualification motion. 

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, appellant 

argues that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas 

corpus petition without first ruling on his disqualification 

motion. Second, appellant maintains that the district court erred 

i n dismissing his habeas corpus petition because the Parole 

Commission exceeded its statutory authority when it ordered 

appellant to serve a greater portion of his sentence than was 

recommended by the Commission's guidelines. 

Appellant moved to disqualify Judge O'Connor pursuant to both 

28 u.s.c. § 144 and 28 u.s.c. § 455(a). Those sections provide in 

re levant part as follows: 

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district 

court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit 

that t he judge before whom the matter is pending has a 

personal bias or prejudice either against him or in 

favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no 

further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to 

.hear suc.h proceeding. 28 u.s.c. § 144. 

Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United 

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3310 Document: 01019967277 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 2 
.. 

whi ch his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 

28 u.s.c . § 455(a) . 

In h is motion to disqualify Chief Judge O'Connor, appellant 

submitted a s worn affidavit stating as follows: 

5. Judge O'Conner (sic) has adpted (sic) the practice 

of withholding final decisions on prisoner's prose 

litigati o n, and unnecessarily sit (sic) on the case 

until t h e prisone r gives up in frustration and cease 

(sic) to pursue the case, or is transferred to another 

prison in anothe r district. 

6 . Pet i tioner has discovered that Judge O'Conner (sic) 

has been incapable of faithfully and impartially 

r e nderi ng a prompt and speedy decision in my particular 

case, but others as well, which are the following: 

[seven l isted actions omitted]. 

7. There i s no record of Judge O'Conner (sic) ever 

having g r anted a prisoner relief that proceeded prose, 

nomatt er (sic) how well founded were the merits of the 

claim presented, because Judge O'Connor's actions 

ind i ca te a distinct favoritism towards the respondent 

government. 

8. Judg e O'Conner (sic) directs the clerk of the court 

to assi g n all prisoner petitions, complaints, etc., that 

come fr om the U.S. penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, 

to him p e rsonally, even though there are other federal 

judges s i tting in the U.S. District at Topeka, Kansas; 

who summarily dismi sses cases that fall short of the 

compar abl e standards expected of a licensed attorney, 

and sits on the cases which has (sic) merit, or 

otherwise demands immediate relief. 

R. Doc ·. 14 (Af fidavi t ) (emphasis in original). Chief Judge 

O'Connor di d not rule on appellant's motion, did not hold a 

heari ng to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations, and 

did not otherwise address the above allegations of bias. 

We hol d t hat appellant's allegations do not satisfy the 

"personal bias or prejudice" standard of 28 U.S.C. § 144. "Under 

§ 144 a motion to recuse ... must be accompanied by an affidavit 

stating , i n non-conclusory terms, the facts establishing the 

alleged personal prejudice, stemming from an extra-judicial source 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3310 Document: 01019967277 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 3 
and resulti ng in an opinion on the merits other than that which 

the judge has learned through his [or her] participation in the 

case ." Uni ted States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507, 511 (10th Cir. 

979 ) . E e n i f true, appellant's allegations would not require 

r ecusal under§ 144. Therefore, no error resulted from Chief 

J udge O' Conno r 's failure to rule on appellant's motion under 

§ 1 44. 

We canno t say, howe~er, that appellant has no chance of 

satisfying the lesser standard for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

455 (a) based on the allegations in the affidavit. Because we are 

na ble t o c onclude "that the contents of [the] affidavit would not 

cause a rea sonable [person] to doubt the judge's impartiality." 

Un ited States v. Hines, 696 F.2d 722, 729 (10th Cir. 1982), we 

ho ld tha t Chief Judge O'Connor's failure to rule on appellant's 

motion was error. 

The government contends that any error resulting from Chief 

Judg e O'Connor's failure to rule on appellant's disqualification 

mo tion is harmless. We agree. A violation of§ 455(a) may 

s ome t i mes be harmless error, see Liljeberg v. Health Services 

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862 (1988). Here, appellant's 

appeal raises only an issue of law which was clearly decided 

co r rec t l y , and therefore the error was harmless because the result 

wo uld not c hange regardless of whether Chief Judge O'Connor were 

recused or not. 

I n his brief on appeal, appellant argues that the Parole 

Comm ission 's "reason for deviating from the recommended time 

_ contained .. i n the guidelines when petitioner was sentenced, of 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3310 Document: 01019967277 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 4 
~-

extending h is imprisonment for 'past criminal conduct' ••• is 

not covered u nder the statute, 18 U.S.C. 4205 (a) & 4206(a)." We 

disagree. The district court correctly held that "[t]he Parole 

Commission may d eny r e l ease o r extend a prisoner beyond the 

parole guidelines 'if it determines there is good cause for so 

doing ." Distr . Ct. Op . at 5 (quoting 18 u.s.c. § 4206(c). The 

Commission's stated r eas on fo r its decision not to parole 

appellant was that he has "a record of violence including assault, 

robbery , bur g la r y , and manslaughter." Distr. Ct. Op. at 5. 

"Und er bot h the statute and the regulations, the Commission may 

consider a pr i soner's prior criminal record and may determine that 

the prisoner s e r v e a sentence above those in the guidelines." 

Stroud v. Uni t ed St ates Parole Commission, 668 F.2d 843, 847 (5th 

Cir. 1982) . Accord i ng ly , the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-3310 Document: 01019967277 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 5