Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06175/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Art Beeler
Appellee
Nelson Ray Pickens
Appellant
United States Parole Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

.. ' 

t FI LED 

United um:s C.Oun of Appeals 

Tenth ".:i..':'D.1!t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR - 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

NELSON RAY PICKENS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ART BEELER, warden; U.S. PAROLE 

COMMISSION, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-6175 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-214-R) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Nelson Ray Pickens appeals from the district court's denial 

of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Pickens, appearing 

both prose and in forma pauperis, filed his petition pursuant to 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6175 Document: 010110031756 Date Filed: 04/05/1991 Page: 1 
28 u.s.c. § 2241, requesting immediate release from federal 

custody in El Reno, Oklahoma. 

I 

While on parole from an eight-year federal sentence for theft 

from interstate shipment, Pickens was charged with and convicted 

of several new state and federal offenses. The federal district 

court, in sentencing Pickens for convictions of mail fraud and 

dealing in unlicensed firearms, expressly ordered that the two new 

sentences, totalling eight years, were to run consecutively, both 

to each other and "to any other sentence heretofore imposed." I 

R. Tab 9, Exs. H-1 and H-2. 

In Pickens' subsequent parole revocation hearing, held while 

he was serving a state sentence for aggravated burglary, 

kidnapping, and aggravated robbery, the United States Parole 

Commission revoked his parole. The Parole Commission's Notice of 

Action required him to serve the remaining balance of his original 

federal eight-year sentence as his violator term, and denied him 

credit for his "street time" while on parole. It also specified 

that Pickens would begin serving his violator term after the 

expiration of his state sentence or after one-hundred twenty 

months service, whichever occurred first. Id., Ex. C. The Notice 

of Action did not state whether his violator term would run 

concurrently or consecutively to his new eight-year federal 

sentence. 

Following the expiration of his state sentence, Pickens began 

serving his violator term in El Reno. When he learned that prison 

officials had computed his violator term to run consecutively to 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6175 Document: 010110031756 Date Filed: 04/05/1991 Page: 2 
" 

his new eight-year sentence, Pickens filed a grievance. The 

warden determined that his violator term and his new eight-year 

sentence should run concurrently. However, one day prior to his 

planned release date, Bureau of Prisons officials recomputed his 

new sentence to run consecutively to his violator term. 

administrative appeal of the recomputation was denied. 

II 

Pickens' 

On appeal, Pickens challenges 1) the recomputation of his 

sentence, 2) the sentencing court's authority to determine whether 

his new federal sentence would run consecutively to his violator 

term, and 3) the loss of his "street time." Appellant's Reply 

Brief at 1. We affirm. 

In challenging the recomputation of his sentence, Pickens 

contends that the Parole Commission's silence as to whether his 

violator term would run concurrently or consecutively to his new 

federal eight-year sentence indicated its intent that the 

sentences run concurrently. Nothing in the record or the law 

supports this contention. In fact, in reviewing Pickens' appeal 

of the recomputation of his sentence, the Parole Commission 

affirmed the Bureau of Prisons' decision that the sentences run 

consecutively. I R. Tab 9, Ex. F. Nor does the recomputation 

itself, following the warden's determination that the sentences 

should run concurrently, require a different result. See Johnson 

v. Taylor, 289 F.2d 743, 744 (10th Cir.)(prison officials' 

recomputation of time remaining on sentence was a "corrective 

measure" and did not require earlier release), cert. denied, 368 

U.S. 845 (1961). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6175 Document: 010110031756 Date Filed: 04/05/1991 Page: 3 
Pickens challenges the sentencing court's authority to 

determine whether his violator term should run consecutively or 

concurrently to his new eight-year sentence, contending that the 

Parole Commission alone has this authority. We recognize the 

Parole Commission's authority to make this determination. See 18 

U.S.C. § 4210(b); McConnell v. Martin, 896 F.2d 441, 446 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 167 (1990); Harris v. Day, 649 

F.2d 755, 760 (10th Cir. 1981). The Parole Commission not only 

had the authority to determine that Pickens' violator term, 

consisting of the remainder of his previously-imposed eight-year 

federal sentence, would be served following the expiration of his 

state sentence, but also had authority to determine that his 

violator term was correctly calculated as being consecutive to his 

new eight-year sentence. Because the record indicates that the 

Parole Commission agreed with the recomputation of Pickens' 

sentences as consecutive, IR. Tab 9, Ex. F, we need not address 

the scope of the sentencing court's authority. 

We also agree with the district court's disposition of 

Pickens' due process challenge to his loss of "street time." 

Because it is mandatory that parole violators convicted of new 

crimes lose their street time upon parole revocation, Harris, 649 

F.2d at 760, due process does not require notification that such 

loss will occur. See Munguia v. United States Parole Comm'n, 871 

F.2d 517, 521 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 161 (1989). 

Finally, Pickens raises several new issues on appeal that 

were not presented to the district court. Although we review his 

pro se pleadings liberally to reach any issues fairly presented, 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6175 Document: 010110031756 Date Filed: 04/05/1991 Page: 4 
~ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), issues not 

presented to the district court will not be considered for the 

first time on appeal. Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 

(10th Cir. 1989). 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6175 Document: 010110031756 Date Filed: 04/05/1991 Page: 5