A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

RI CK E Y DON C UT BI RT H, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v . WYOM I NG DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CTI ONS DI REC TOR, a lso k n o w n a s R o b e rt L a m p e rt; W YO M I NG ATTO RN EY G E N E R A L , al so kn ow n as P at ri ck J. C r ank, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 8001 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 2 1 2 - WF D)

(D . W y o .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es. Pet i t i onerR i ckeyD on C utbi r th appea l s fr om a di s tr i ctcourtor derdeny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 pet i t i on forhabea s corpus , w hi ch cha l l enged the r evoca t i on of hi s par ol e undert he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . T he-2-

d istric t co u rt g ra n ted C u tb irth a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) o n th e sin g le i s s ue of w hetherhe w as deni ed due pr oces s athi s par ol e r evoca t i on hear i ng by havi ng a hea r i ng bodycomposed of tw o boar d m ember s i ns t ead of thr ee, as r equi r ed underW y om i ng l aw . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatC utbi r th r ece i ved al l of t h e d u e p r o c e s s t o wh i c h h e wa s e n t i t l e d u n d e rth e F o u r t e e n th Am e n d me n t , we e x e r c i s e o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 t o a ffi r m. I. T he r el evantfac t s under l y i ng C utbi r th’ s due pr oces s chal l enge a r e not di s put ed. H e i s a W y om i ng s t at e pr i s oners ervi ng a s ent ence of 11 t o 95 y ear s for s econd- degr ee mur der . I n J anuary1997, he w as r el eas ed on par ol e pur s uantt o a s t andar d par ol e agr eementt hatr equi r ed hi m t o keep hi s par ol e off i ceri nform ed of h is w h ere ab o u ts an d steer clea r of il lega l con tr o ll ed su b stan ce s. In F eb rua ry 2000, C utbi r t h t es t ed pos i t i ve form ar ij uana a nd s hor t l yther eaf t erabs conded f

r om su p e rv isio n . H e re m a in e d a t larg e u n til N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , w h e n h e w a s ta k e n in to c u s t o d y w h i l e r e e n t e r i n g t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n N e w a r k , N e w J e r s e y. Fol l ow i ng a pr el i m i naryhear i ng, the St at e det erm i ned thatther e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o r evoke Cutbi r t h’ s par ol e. O n February18, 2004, he s i gned a

“ W a iv e r o f

F in a l R e v o c a tio n H e a rin g ,” R . d o c . 2 0 , atta c h . A , ex . 7 (W a iv e r), in w hi ch he a dm i t t ed t o vi ol at i ng t he condi t i ons of hi s par ol e byus i ng m ar ij uana and abs condi ng fr om s upervi s i on. N otw i ths t andi ng the W ai ver , C utbi r th di d have a fi nal r evoca t i on hear i ng on February25, 2004. U nderW y om i ng l aw , he w as1 T hr ee ( 3) orm or e mem ber s of the boar d m aycons t i tut e a he ar i ng

panel empow er ed t o r evi ew appl i cat i ons forpar ol e, gr antpar ol es or r evoke pa r ol es . Few ert han thr ee ( 3) m ember s of the boar d . . . m ay w i t hdr aw orr evoke good t i m e, r es t or e orr ei ns t at e good t i m e, m ake i ni t i al det erm i nat i ons of el i gi bi l i tyand r es t or e vot i ng r i ght s pur s uant t o W . S. 7- 13- 105( b) and ( c) , m ake r ecomm endat i ons t o the governor t o gr antcomm ut at i ons of s ent ence s and r evi ew i nm at e mat t er s , other t han the gr antordeni al of par ol e, br oughtbefor e the boar d. W y o . S tat . A n n . § 7 -13 -40 1 (f) (19 7 7 ). -3- ent i t l ed t o a hear i ng panel cons i s t i ng of thr ee par ol e- boar d m ember s . D ue t o bad 1 w eather , how ever , one mem berw as unabl e t o r eac h the hea r i ng l ocat i on, and C utbi r t h r el uct ant l yagr eed t o pr ocee d befor e j us tt w o m ember s . A tt he c o n c lu sio n o f

th e h e a rin g , the W y o m in g B o a rd o f P a ro le, a c tin g th ro u g h M ich e lle D a ig le, c h a ir o f

th e h e a rin g p a n e l, rev o k e d C u tb irth ’s p a ro le b a se d o n h is adm i ssi on s i n the W ai ver t o v i olat i ng t he term s of his parol e agreem ent. Ital so o rd e re d th a t h e n o t r e c e iv e c re d it fo r t h e fo u r ye a rs th a t h e s p e n t o n p a ro le , i.e .,

“ s tr e e t tim e .” A f ter c h a llen g in g th e p a ro le b o a rd ’s d e c isio n u n su c c e ss f u llyin sta te c o u rt, Cu tb i r t h fi l e d a p e t i t i o n fo rh a b e a s c o rp u s i n U. S . d i s tr i c tc o u r tu n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2241, advanc i ng t he fol l ow i ng t hr ee a r gum ent s : ( 1) t hathe w as deni ed the assi st ance o f cou nsel du ri ng t he final revocati on heari ng ; (2) t hat hi s due p rocess ri g h ts w ere v iolated b yh av ing a h ea ri n g b o d yo f o n lytw o p aro le bo ard m em b ers i n vi ol at i on of W y om i ng l aw ; and ( 3) t hathi s s ent ence w as unl aw ful l yenhanc ed b e c a u s e h e w a s d e n ie d c re d it fo r h is s tr e e t tim e .-4-

O n D ece m ber19, 2005, t he di s tr i ctcourti s s ued i t s or derdeny i ng the p eti ti o n . W ith resp ec t t o the fir st argu m en t, the c o u rth eld th at at C u tbirth’s par ol e r evoca t i on hear i ng, “he di d notenj oythe cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o an a tto rn e y .” R . d o c . 2 8 a t 6 . A s th e c o u rt e x p lain e d , a p a ro lee is n o t au to m a tica lly e n title d to th e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l a t a p a ro le re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g . G agnon v. Sc a rp e lli , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 7 8 , 7 9 0 -9 1 (1 9 7 3 ). R a th e r, th e sta te is e n tru ste d to det erm i ne on a c as e- by - cas e bas i s w hethercouns el i s r equi r ed t o s at i s fythe fundament al pr ece pt s of due pr oces s . T ypi cal l y , couns el i s notr equi r ed w her e, as i n C u tb i r t h ’ s c a s e , t h e p a r o l e e a d m i t s t o v i o l a t i n g th e t e r m s o f h i s p a r o l e . F i n a l l y, t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned thatC utbi r th’ s m i t i gat i on ar gum ent s w er e nei ther compl ex nordi ffi cul tt o devel op and thatther e w as no i ndi cat i on thathe w as in c a p a b le o f

p re s e n tin g h is c a s e to th e p a ro le b o a rd . T he courtr ej ect ed C utbi r t h’ s s econd a r gum entbas ed on Mor r is s ey v . B r ew er , 408 U . S. 471, 488- 89 ( 1972) , a ca s e i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our tout l i ned t he mi ni m um cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s thatm us tbe affor ded a pa r ol ee a tthe fi nal r evoca t i on hear i ng. C ons i s t entw i th i t s appr oach i n G agnon , the C o u rt in Mor r is s ey w a s flex ib le a n d d e c lin e d to “ w rite a c o d e o f p ro c e d u re ,” w h ich it fe lt w as a t as k bet t erl eftt o t he s t at es . 408 U . S. at488. I thel d, how ever , that“a

‘ neutr al and det ache d’ hear i ng body , ” i d. at489, i s among t he mi ni m um r equi r ement s nece s s aryt o s at i s fydue pr oces s . Fol l ow i ng Mor r is s ey , the di s tr i ct co u rth eld th at i n o rde r fo r C u tbirth to p rov e tha t his du e p roc ess righ ts w ere-5-

vi ol at ed, he had t o “pr ovi de a factual bas i s s how i ng thatthe l ack of part i ci pat i on byt he thi r d Par ol e B oar d m emberr es ul t ed i n a hea r i ng bodyw hi ch w as not n e u tra l an d d e tac h e d .” R . d o c . 2 8 a t 7 . A n d it co n c lu d e d th a t C u tb irth fa iled to set fo rth su ffici en t fac ts t o m ak e su ch a sh o w ing . A d d ressing C u tbirth’s ar gum ent s t hatt he tw o femal e boar d m ember s w er e pr ej udi ced byal l eged outbur s t s m ade byA nt oni o E s cami l l a, a par ol e pr ogr am coor di nat orw ho at t ended th e h e a rin g , the c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t su c h “ sp e c u latio n . . . [w a s] n o t ad e q u a te to s how par t i al i t y . ” Id. T he courtw enton t o concl ude thateven i f a tw o- m ember hear i ng panel cons t i tut ed a vi ol at i on of due pr oces s , the err orw as harm l es s under B r echtv. A br aham s on , 507 U . S. 619, 623 ( 1993) . “[T] he fa i l ur e of a thi r d panel m embert o r evi ew M r . C utbi r t h’ s par ol e r evoca t i on [w as ] harm l es s , as the l ack of a th ird m e m b e r d id n o t h a v e a su b sta n tial a n d inju rio u s e ffe c t o r in flu e n c e in det erm i ni ng t he r evoca t i on pr ocee di ng’ s out come. ” R . doc. 28 at9. Fi nal l y , t he courtfound no Si xth A m endmenti m pedi m entt o deny i ng C utbi r t h cr edi tforhi s s t r eett i m e “be caus e the deni al di d notl engthen orpr ol ong hi s s ent ence bey ond t he or i gi nal t erm i m pos ed bythe tr i al j udge, even though t he m axi m um s ent ence di s char ge dat e mayhave be en ext ended due t o the for fei tur e. ” Id. a t 1 0 . II. C u tb irth w a s g ra n ted a C O A o n th e iss u e o f w h e th e r h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e he w as deni ed a thr ee- m emberhear i ng panel . W e r evi ew-6-

the d istri ct co u rt ’s reso luti o n o f th is l eg al qu esti o n an d it s d ism issal of C u tbirth’s h a b e a s p e titio n d e n o v o . Weekes v. F l em i ng , 3 0 1 F . 3 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 7 6 -77 (10 th C ir . 2002) . W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcourtthatC utbi rth’ s par ol e r evoca t i on hear i ng a ffo r d e d h i m t h e m i n i m u m p r o c e d u r a l p r o t e c t i o n s m a n d a t e d b y Mor r is s ey a n d we aff i r m i t s deci s i on fort he s ame r eas ons art i cul at ed i n i t s w el l - r eas oned opi ni on of D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 . C o n sid e rin g C u tb irth ’s h e a v yre lian c e o n W y o m in g law in su p p o rt o f h is due pr oces s chal l enge, how ever , one as pectof the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on d e se rv e s e lab o ra tio n . T h e c o u rt rejec ted C u tb irth ’s r e lian c e o n W y o m in g sta tu te 7- 13- 401( f) beca us e i tobs erved, corr ect l y , thatpar ol e r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs gi ve r i s e t o pr ot ect i on byt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of i t s ow n for ce, notbyvi r tue of anys t at e l aw . C utbi r t h’ s ar gum ents eems t o be thateven s o, the St at e of W y o m in g g ra n te d p a ro le e s e v e n g re a te r p ro te c tio n b ye n a c tin g § 7 -1 3 -4 0 1 (f). T hi s i s t rue. T he W y om i ng s t atut e cl ear l ypr ovi des thata hea r i ng panel em po w ered t o revok e parol e m ustbe co m pri sed of three or m ore boa rd m em bers, s om ethi ng notm andat ed i n Mor r is s ey . B u t th e lea p th a t w e d e c lin e to m a k e is t hat this ri gh tt o a thr ee-m em ber pan el i s som eho w prot ect ed b ythe D ue P rocess C la u s e . I thas l ong been r ecogni zed that“St at es m ayundercert ai n ci r cumst ance s cr eat e l i ber t yi nt er es t s w hi ch ar e pr ot ect ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ” Sandi n v. C onner , 515 U . S. 472, 483- 84 ( 1995) . I n thi s cas e, C utbi r th cl ai m s thatbyus i ng-7-

m a n d a to rylan g u a g e in § 7 -1 3 -4 0 1 (f), th e S tate c re a ted a lib e rtyin ter e st in h is r i ghtt o a thr ee- m emberhear i ng panel . T hi s r i ght , how ever , i s nothi ng m or e than a rig h t to a c e rta in p ro c e ss . E v e n if th e th ird b o a rd m e m b e r w e re p re se n t, C utbi r t h w as notguar ant eed a part i cul arout come. W e have hel d thata s t at ec re a te d ri g h t to p ro c e s s is n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly g u a ra n te e d . Doy l e v . Ok la h o ma B a r A ss’n , 9 9 8 F . 2 d 1 5 5 9 , 1 5 7 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). Pr oces s i s notan end i n i t s el f. I t s cons t i tut i onal purpos e i s t o pr ot ect a su b sta n tiv e in ter e st to w h ich th e in d iv id u a l h a s a leg iti m a te c laim of ent i t l ement . T he mer e expe ct at i on of r ece i vi ng a s t at e affor ded pr oces s does notcr eat e an i ndepende ntl i bertyi nt er es tpr ot ect ed by t he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. Id. ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . Si nce § 7- 13- 401( f) r equi r es no m or e than t hatt he St at e affor d par ol ees a part i cul arpr oces s , w hi ch i t s el f goes bey ond that r e q u i r e d b y Mor r is s ey , t her e w as no fede r al due pr oces s vi ol at i on i nher enti n the revocati on of C utbi rth’s par ole bytw o b oard m em bers. III . F in a lly , C u tb irth h a s filed a m o tio n to e x p a n d th e sc o p e o f th e C O A to i ncl ude the fol l ow i ng t hr ee i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherhe w as uncons t i tut i onal l ydeni ed the righ t t o co u n sel at his p aro le rev o ca ti o n h ea ri n g ; ( 2 ) w h ethe r E sca m il la’s par t i ci pat i on att he par ol e r evoca t i on hear i ng vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s ; and ( 3) w hethert he par ol e boar d vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s bys t at i ng thati tw oul d not cons i dera futur e gr antof par ol e unl es s and unt i l he r el ocat ed hi s fami l yfr om t he U nit ed K i ng do m t o the U nit ed S t at es. C utbi rth is enti t l ed to a C O A on these-8-

i s s ues “onl yupon m aki ng a ‘ s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ’ ” Mont ezv. McK i nna , 208 F. 3d 862, 869 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng 28 U . S. C . § 2253 ( c) ( 2) ) . Fort he r eas ons di s cus s ed i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s D ece m ber 19, 2005, or der , w e conc l ude thatC utbi r th has notm ade the r equi s i t e s how i ng as to th e fir s t tw o is s u e s ra is e d in h is m o tio n . A lth o u g h C u tb irth ra ise d th e th ird iss u e in th e d istric t co u rt, th e c o u rt d id notaddr es s i ti n i t s opi ni on. W e conc l ude, how ever , thatC utbi r th des erves no encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t heras t o thi s i s s ue. H e has nott ol d us w her e i n t he re c o rd th e p a ro le b o a rd m a d e th is a lle g e d s ta te m e n t, a n d w e a re u n a b le to fin d it. W hatw e di d fi nd w as t he par ol e boar d’ s “Fi ndi ngs of Fact , C oncl us i ons and Fi nal D ispo sit ion , ” R . d o c. 9, E x . K . , w h ich s tat es th at i ts de cisi o n to rev o k e C u tbirth’s par ol e w as bas ed on the admi s s i ons thathe made i n the W ai ver . T her e i s nothi ng in th e re c o rd to in d ica te th a t th e lo c a tio n o f C u tb irth ’s fa m ilyp layed a n yro le in t he boar d’ s deci s i on, and the onl yques t i on befor e us i s w hetherC utbi r th w as affor ded hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s dur i ng the par ol e r evoca t i on pr oces s . W hether th e re a re a n yu n c o n stitu tio n a l p re re q u isites to h is a b ili tyto m a k e f u tu re p a ro le is n o t an iss u e in th is a p p e a l. In sh o rt, w ith re sp e c t to a ll o f th e iss u e s ra ise d in C utbi r t h’ s m ot i on, he has fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Mont ez , 2 0 8 F .3 d a t 8 6 9 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). H is m o tio n to e x p a n d t h e CO A i s t h e r e fo r e DE NI E D.-9-

T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . M s. S w e a rin g e n ’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a s c o u n se l fo r a p p e llee s is GR ANT E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge