A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * unnecessary. Thus, the appeal i s s ubm i tte d on the bri ef s a nd the re cor d. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United 

# S tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Ja nuary 22, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly20 , 20 09 B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e N os. 08
- 2711 & 08
- 2503 LONNI E A. GO ODI NG, P et it ioner-App el lant,
v. H . J . M ARBE RRY, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
. A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Divi si on o f I ndi an a, Te r r e H au te Di vi si o n. No . 2 : 0 7
- c v - 3 2 2
- R L Y
- WGH R ich ar d L . Yo u n g, Judg e . O R D E R Lonnie Gooding, a Dist ri ct o fCol um bi a pri sone r curr entl y ho used at the federa l penit enti ar y in Terr e Haute, Ind i ana, peti ti oned f ora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus under 2 8 U. S
. C. § 22 41 a fte rthe Uni te d S ta te s Pa r o l e Comm i ss i o n de ni ed hi s appl i ca ti o n fo rr el ea se . T he d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied th e p et itio n, an d G oo d in g th en filed a m ot ion to va c at e t h at d ec isio n . The dis tr i ct c ourtal so denie d thi s m oti on, and Goodi ng appeal s bo th r ulings. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th F ED . R. A PP . P . 32.1N os. 08
- 2711 & 08
- 2503 Page 2

I n 199 0 the S up er i orCourto fthe Dist ri ct o fCol um bi a s entence d G oo ding to 15 ye ar s t o life in p ris on for a rm ed m an sla u gh te r. W h en G oo d in g c om m itt ed th e c rim e in 1989 , paro l e deci si ons f orD. C. pri sone rs were m ade bythe Dist ri ct o fCol um bi a Boar d of Paro l e ( “Boar d”). S ee D.C. Code § 24- 131. But bythe ti m e Goo ding becam e e l i gibl e for paro l e in 200 1, Congr ess had abo l i shed the Board and tr ansfer re d to the Unite d Sta tes Pa r o l e Co mm i s s i o n ( “ Co mm i s s i o n” ) the a utho r i t y t o g r a nto rde nyp a r o l e f o rD. C. offenders. S ee id .; Glas co e v. Bezy, 42 1 F . 3d 543, 545 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) . The Com m i ssi on subsequentl y i ssued paro l e guidel i nes a pp l i cabl e t o D.C. o ffenders w ho, l i ke Gooding, had thei r i ni ti alparo l e hea rings a fterA ugust 5 , 19 98. S ee 28 C .F.R . §2.8 0. The Com m i ssi on e val uated Goodi ng f orparo l e in 200 1 a nd 20 03, but i t deni ed paro l e bo th ti m es. The Com m i ssi on co nd ucted a thi rd hear i ng vi a vi deo- confer ence, se e 28 C .F.R . § 2.25 , in A p ril 20 07, afte r G oo d in g h ad be en in p ris on for n ea rly 21 4 m on th s. A l though the Com m i ssi on ca l cul ate d a paro l e- el i gibi l i ty gui del i nes r ange of21 3 t o 249 m o nths , i t dec i ded th atGo o di ngs ho ul d no t be pa r o l ed wi th i n tha t r an g e. Acc o r di ngt o the C om m iss ion, G oo d in g p re se n te d a gr ea te r ris k th an ind ica te d by th e g u id elin es be c au se h is offense i nvol ved “k i l l i ng ano theri nd i vi du alwh i l e a rm ed and du ring an att em pt to f o r ce ful l y o bt ain mone y . ” F ur th er, Go o di ngha d b ee n c au g htwi tha wea po n in pr i so n, a nd the Com m i ssi on thus concl ud ed that ther e was a ser i ous r i sk that he would co m m i t a rm ed cri m es i fparo l ed. The Com m i ssi on s cheduled a re consi derat i on hea ring f orA pri l20 10. Goo di ngpe ti ti o ne d the di st r i ctc o ur t f o ra wri t o fhabe as c o r pus , a r g ui ngtha t th e Com m i ssi on vi ol ate d his r i ght t o du e pr oce ss by conducti ng the hear i ng vi a vi deoconfer ence i nstea d ofi n pers on, and that the a pp l i cati on o fthe Com m i ssi on’ s guidel i nes vi o l at ed th e Ex Po stF ac to Cl au se . Go o di ngwant ed ani n- per so n r eh ea r i nga t whi chthe Com m i ssi on would applythe D.C. gui del i nes that were i n effect at the t i m e he com m i tte d hi s cr i m e. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed Goodi ng’ s peti ti on a nd hi s s ubsequent m oti on under Feder alRule o fCi vi lPro cedure 60(b)
. W hen r evi ew i ng a deci si on t o deny a peti ti on for habeas co rpus, we re vi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s l ega lco ncl usi ons deno vo . C harlt on v. D avis , 43 9 F .3d 36 9, 37 2 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). O n ap p ea l, G oo d in g re n ew s h is a rg u m en t t h at th e P ar ole C om m iss ion d en ied h im du e pr oce ss by conducti ng hi s par ol e hea ring vi a vi deo- confer ence. To succee d on hi s dueproce ss cl ai m , Goodi ng was r equi re d to show that he has a l iber ty i nter estatst ake
. S ee D om ka v. Po rt age Co unty, 52 3 F . 3d 776, 77 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . But a paro l e s tatute c re ate s a l iber ty i nter esto nl y when i t use s m andator y l anguage enti tl i ng a pri sone r to re l eas e upon fulfi l l m ent o fcer tain cr i ter i a, se e B d. o f P a rdo ns v . Allen , 482 U . S. 369, 377-81 (1987 ); G reenh o ltz v. Inm a tes of Neb. P ena l & C o rr. C o m plex , 442 U .S. 1, 8-1 2 (1 97 9); Gre nni e rv. Frank, 453 F. 3d 442, 44 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) . The Di str i ct o fCol um bi a’ s par ol e r egi m e, f arfro mN os. 08
- 2711 & 08
- 2503 Page 3

confer ring such a n enti tl em ent, i s e nti re l y di scr eti onar y, se e D. C. Co de § 24
- 40 4( a) ( st at i ng tha twh e n a p r i s o ne rme e t s c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a , “ the Bo a r d m ayautho ri ze hi s r el eas e o n p ar ole ”); Thom pson v. Veach , 5 01 F . 3d 83 2, 8 36
- 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) . Be ca us e Goo di ngha s no libe rt y in te re stin p ar ole , th e u se of vid eo -c on fer en c in g c an n otvio lat e d u e p ro c es s. Goodingal so ar gues that the Com m i ssi on vi ol ate d the Ex PostFa cto Cl ause by apply i ngi ts o wn gu i del i ne s r athe rtha n the D. C. pa r o l e g ui del i ne s i n e ffec t when he com m itted m an slaugh ter in 1989. T o prev ailon th is argum en t, G ood ing m us t d o m ore than as ser t that the Com m i ssi on’ s guidel i nes c re ate d som e “ specul ati ve, at tenuate d ri sk” o f a l onge r pri son ter m . S ee C a l. D ep't o f C o rr. v. M o ral es , 514 U .S. 49 9, 50 8-0 9 (1 99 5); Glas co e, 42 1 F .3d at54 8-4 9; R ichards on v. P a. B d. of Prob. & Pa role, 423 F.3d 28 2, 28 8 (3 d C ir. 20 05 ). In st ea d , G oo d in g m u std em on st ra te eith er th at th e C om m iss ion ’s g u id elin es are fac ially hars her than the D. C. gui del i nes, o r that the Com m i ssi on’ s guidel i nes, as appli ed to Gooding, cr eat e a si gni fi cant ri sk ofi ncre ase d pu ni shm ent. S ee G a rner v. Jo nes , 52 9 U.S
. 24 4, 25 5 (2 00 0); Glas co e, 421 F.3d at54 7-4 8; cf. U nited Sta tes v. D em a ree, 459 F.3d 791 , 795 (7th C ir. 20 06 ) (su gg es tin g th at E x P os t F ac to C lau se d oe s n otap p ly to d isc re tio n ar y p ar ole gu id elin es ). Goodingar gues that the Com m i ssi on’ s use o fi ts gui del i nes r esul ted i n a pr ol onge d pr i so n s ta y f o rhi m , b uthe ha s ne ve re xpl aine d ho w thi s i s so . Al th o ugh h e as se r ts tha t th e C om m iss ion im p er m iss ibly u se d an “o ffen se se ve rit y” co m p on en t w h en ca lcu lat in g h is paro l e e l i gibi l i ty gui del i nes, he i s m i sta ken. The Com m i ssi on a pp l i es a di stinct s et of gui del i nes t o i nm ate s who w er e co nvi cted o utsi de the Dist ri ct o fCol um bi a, se e 28 C. F . R. § 2. 20 , a nd tho se g ui del i ne s co nt ain a n inde x a ss i g ni ng“ o ffen se s ev er i ty ” sc o r es t o v ar i o us cri m es. But the Com m i ssi on di d not a pp l y § 2. 20 to Gooding ; i t a pp l i ed, as i t was r equi re d to, § 2. 80, the gui del i nes forD. C. offenders. And bec ause the f acto rs co nsi dered under § 2 . 80 ar e v er y s i m i l arto tho se consi dered under the D. C. Board o fPar ol e’ s guidel i nes, com p are 28 C.F
. R. §§ 2. 80( d)- ( n) w i th 28 D.C. M un. Regs. §§ 20 4. 1- 204. 22, the ne w gui del i nes a re notf aci al l y m or e o nero us. S ee Gl as co e, 421 F.3d at54 7. N orhas Goodingdem onst ra ted thatthe gui del i nes, as appli ed to hi s o w n el i gibi l i ty f o rr el ea se , c r ea te d a s i g ni fi ca ntr i sko fi nc r ea se d puni sh m en t. In de ny i ngpa r o l e, the Comm i ss i o n c o ns i der ed th e na tu r e o fGo o di ng ’ s cr i m e as wel la s hi s wea po ns i nfr ac ti o n, f acto rs wh i ch i t a l so w oul d have co nsi dered under the D. C. gui del i nes. S ee D. C. M un. R eg s. § 2 04 .18 . Fu rt h er , eve n if th e C om m iss ion h ad ap p lied th e D .C . gu id elin es , i t s till w oul d have had di scr eti on t o depart fro m tho se gui del i nes, as i t di d here
. S ee id
. § 204. 22; Glas co e, 421 F.3d at54 8; M cRae v. Hym an , 66 7 A.2 d 1356, 13 60- 61 ( D.C. 19 95) ( noting tha t § 204.22 “m akes clear” th e B oard ’s auth ority to ignore th e guid eli ne s in un us ua l case s); W hi t ev. Hym an , 64 7 A.2 d 1175, 11 79 ( D.C. 19 94) ( noting tha t under the D. C. gui del i nesN os. 08
- 2711 & 08
- 2503 Page 4

“[ d]epar ture s m ust be expl ai ned, but they ar e no t pr osc ribed”)
. Goo ding has no t a rgued th at th e C om m iss ion ’s b as is for d ep ar tu re in h is c as e w ou ld h av e b ee n im p er m iss ible u n d er th e D .C . gu id elin es . In d ee d , un d er th e D .C . gu id elin es , pa ro le is p er m iss ible on ly if “the r e i s r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t th e pr i so ne rwi l ll i ve a nd r emai n a t l ibe r tywi th o ut vi ol ating the l aw , ” s ee D.C. M un. Regs. § 200. 01(b) , and Goodi ng’ s weapons i nfr acti on convinced the Com m i ssi on that thi s probabi l i ty w as l acking. Fi nal l y, with r espectto the Rule 60(b) m oti on, Goodi ng has m i sapprehended i ts pu rpos e. Rul e 6 0( b) i s no t a subst i tute f orappeal
. S ee Stoll erv. Pu reFis hing, Inc. , 52 8 F . 3d 47 8, 48 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). B ec au se G oo d in g’s m ot ion m er ely reh as h es arg u m en ts h e ra ise d in supp or t o fhi s peti ti on forhabea s co rpus, the dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y deni ed i t. S ee Be l l v. East m an Kodak Co. , 214 F.3d 798 , 800 (7th C ir. 2000). The j ud gm ents ar e A F F I RME D .