FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 17, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11002 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -004 45 -C V -R W S -1 M U T U L U S H A K U R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A R D E N R O N N I E W I L E Y , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m be r17, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M utul u S haku r, a fe d er al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2241 habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on, i n w hi c h he cha l l e nge d the de c i s i on of the U . S . P a r ol e C om m i s s i on ( “ C om m i s s i on” ) de ny i ngWe notethat th eSentenc ingRe fo rm Ac t of 19 84replac e d a

system of

inde terminate 1 sentences and the possibility of parole with deter

minate sentenc ing a

nd no parole . See Walden v. U. S. Pa ro leComm’ n, 11 4 F .3 d 1 13 6, 11 38 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 7) . TheAc t abol ishe d th eParo le Commi ssion, and repe aled most of the pre-ex isting statutory framework g overningparoleof fe deral prisoners. Pub.L . 98-473, §§ 218(a)(5) , 235, 98 Stat. 1837. Section 235 of the Ac t, however , saved the Parole Comm ission and the federal parole st atutes for five year s until November 1, 1992, during which the tra

nsition t o the new system would occur . I d. § 235. The ParoleCommi ssion’s exi stence has subsequently

been ex tended several times, with the most rec ent extension continuing the Commi ssion until November 1, 2005. 21st Century

Depa rtment of Just ice Appropriations Act, Pub. L . No. 107-273, § 11017(a), 116 Stat. 1758. Shakur alsoargue s o n a

pp e al th at hi s c laimsof

error sh ould b ereviewe d cumulativ e ly in 2 assessingwhether

the Commiss ion abused its discretion. B ecaus e we find no error as to the indivi du al c laims , w edono t add re ss his a rgument a s tocumulativ ee ff e c t. 2 h im p a r o le a n d c o n tin u in g h is r e c o n s id e r a tio n h e a r in g f o r1 5 y e a r s . O n ap p e a l,

1 S ha kurr a i s e s the fo l l ow i ng i s s ue s : ( 1) tha tthe C om m i s s i on f a c tua l l y e rr e d by
m i s c a l c ul a t i ng hi s t i m e i n c us t ody i n r e a ch i n g i t s pa r ol e de c i s i on a nd de t e rm i ni ng h is r e c o n s id e r a tio n d a te ; ( 2 ) th a t th e C o m m is s io n e n g a g e d in im p e rm is s ib le d o u b le
- c o u n t i n g b y u s in g th e s a m e c r im in a l c o n d u c t b o th to e s tab lis h h is p a r o le s e ve r i ty gui de l i ne r a t i ng a nd t o f i nd a n a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t o r j us t i f

y i ng ade c i s i on ou t si de of the parol e gui del i nes; (3 ) thatthe C om m i ss i on vi ol at ed fe dera l
r e g u la tio n s b y r e ly in g o n d o c u m e n t s n o td is c lo s e d to h im in m a k in g its p a r o le de c i s i on; a nd ( 4) tha tthe C om m i s s i on’ s N a t i ona l A ppe a l s B oa r d ( “ N A B ” ) e rr e d by denyi ng S haku r nun c pro tun c c re di tfor his re co n si dera t i on hear i ng t o 1 99 6 w hen he w as al l egedl y i ni t i al l y e l i gi bl e f or parol e. 2 T he avai l abi l i ty of hab ea s re li ef un der § 22 41 pres ent s quest i on s of l aw that
w e r e vi e w de novo. C ook v. W i l e y , 208 F . 3d 1314, 1317 ( 11th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). T heIn B onner v . City of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 3 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all former F ifth Circuit decisions issue d p ri o r t o th e closeof business on October

1, 1981. 3 C om m i s s i on i s v est e d w i th ve ry br oa d di s c r e t i on i n m a tt e r s of pa r ol e . M e a ghe rv. C l ark, 94 3 F . 2d 12 77 , 12 83 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ). “A fe dera l courtw i l l no tre vers e a de c i s i on of

the C om m i s s i on unl e s s i ti nvol ve s f l a gr a nt , unw a rr a nt e d, or u n a u th o r i z e d a c tio n th a t c o n s titu te s a n ab u s e o f th e C o m m is s io n ’s d is c r e tio n .” G l um b v . H on st ed, 89 1 F . 2d 87 2, 8 7 3 (1 1 th C i r. 19 90 ). Indeed, “ [j ] ud i ci al re vi ew o f d e n ia l o f

p a r o le b y it is p e rm is s ib le o n ly u p o n a lle g a tio n s o f f a c t s , s u f f i c i e n t if pr ove d, t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe B oa r d’ s a c t i on w a s a rbi tr a ry , c apr i c i ous , ora n abus e of di sc re t i on . ” C al abro v. U . S . B d. of P ar ol e, 52 5 F . 2d 66 0, 66 1 (5th C i r. 19 75 ). 3 A ft er th o ro u g h rev i ew o f th e reco rd an d carefu l co n si d erat i o n o f th e p a r t i es’ b r i e f s , w e a f f i rm. T he ba c kgr ound f

a c t s a r e s tr a i ght f

orw a r d. S ha kurw a s c onvi c t e d i n the U n i t e d St a t e s D i s tr i c tCo u r tf o rth e So ut he r n D i s tr i c to f N e w Y o rk o f

RI CO conspi ra cy , bank robb ery, arm ed bank robb ery, an d b ank rob beryki l l i ng s, and w as s e nt e nc e d on A ugus t2, 1988, be f or e i n st i tut i on of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , t o a 60- y e a rt e rm of

i m pr i s onm e nt . T he S e c ond C i r cu i t aff i rm e d hi s c onvi c t i on on di r e c tappe a l , U ni t ed S t a t e s v. S ha kur , 888 F . 2d 234 ( 2nd C i r . 1989) , a nd l a t e rtheThe “mini-file” is another name f or the Commission’s file, which primarily consists of 4 documents provided by

the B OP from the instituti onal file.

4 di stri ctcourtdeni ed a r equestfor r el i ef un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 , S h ak ur v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 3 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 5 1 ( S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 9 ) . In 19 96 , S haku r s ued the B ureau o f P ri sons (“ B O P ”) al l egi ng , am on g o ther th in g s , th a t “h e w a s d e p r iv e d . . . o f h is lib e r ty in te r e s t to a n e a r l y p a r o l e h e a r in g in F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 6 ” b e c a u s e th e B O P u s e d in f o rm a t i o n t h a t it “k n e w o rh a d r e a s o n to k n o w w as fal se” t o p rev en ta p aro l e h eari n g fro m g o i n g fo rw ard . S ee g en erally S ha kurv. F e d. B ur e a u of P r i s ons , N o. 96- 646, m a nus c r i ptop. a t6 ( D . D . C . F e b. 3, 19 98 ). T he U ni t ed S t at es D i strict C o u rtfor the D i stri ctof C ol um bi a gra nt ed s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the B O P on thi s c l a i m , f i ndi ng tha tS ha kurf

a i l e d t o a l l e ge how , a f t e rs e rvi ng onl y t en ye a r s of a60- y e a rs e nt e nc e , he w oul d ha ve qua l i f i e d f or an ea rl y hea ri ng . Id . T he D . C . C i rc ui taf fi rm ed sum m ary j ud gm enton appeal . S ee S h a k u rv . F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f P r is o n s , N o . 9 8 - 5 1 7 4 ( D .C . C ir . O c t. 2 9 , 1 9 9 8 ) . S ha kurs e rve d appr oxi m a t e l y f i f t e e n y e a r s be f

or e be i ng c ons i de r e d f or parol e. A tS haku r’ s i ni t i al parole h ea rin g on Jul y 17, 20 02 , he re qu es t ed di sc l osure of B O P an d C om m i s s i on f i l e s . T he he a r i ng e xa m i ne rgr a nt e d a c ont i nua nc e of the h eari n g s o S ha kurc oul d r e vi e w the i ns t i tut i ona l f i l e , not i ng tha tS ha kurw oul d be se n t a lett erad v isin g h im w h at d o cu m en ts w er e i n c lu d ed in th e C o m m issio n ’s “m in i- f ile .” 4Thereareeight offensecate g ories, and theparoleguidelines provide upper and lower 5 confinement limit s for c ateg ories one through seven, f rom which the Comm i s s i o n may depar t for g ood cause . See 18 U.S.C. § 4206(c) . Offense Categ ory Eight is reserved f or only the most serious c rime s, and

there fo re“noupper limits are sp e c if ie d due to the e xtreme va

ri a bil ity of thec a se s w ithin this categ ory . ” 2 8 C . F. R . § 2.20 n. 1. I f the Commission decides to exceed the lower limit of Categ ory Eight parole e ligibility

by more than f

orty-eight months, i t should “s p ecify the per tinent casefac tors upon which it relied in reaching its decision.” I d. Notably, Shakur did not contest the ratingof the off

ense severity

at Categ ory

Eight under the Commi ssion’s guidelines and thus, so long as the Commission s pecif ied its reasons, there wa s no upper limit to S hakur’ s parole period.

5 O n S e pt e m b e r2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , Sh a k u r ’ s p a r o l e h e a r i n g r e s u me d . Pr i o rt o the h e a r in g , th e h e a r in g e x a m in e rn o te d th a t w h ile S h a k u rh a d r e v ie w e d h is in s titu tio n a l f

ile , h e s till h a d n o t r e c e iv e d th e le tte rab o u t t h e C o m m is s io n ’s m in if ile . T h e h e a r in g e x a m in e rr e a d a lo u d am e m o r a n d u m s ta tin g t h a t S h a k u r ’s m in if ile d id n o t c o n t a i n a n y d o c u m e n ts th a t h a d n o t b e e n m a d e a v a ilab le to h im previ ou sl y, w i th the exception o f l ett er s s up po rt i ng S haku r’ s par ol e. S haku r then i nd i ca t ed thathe had h ad suff i ci entti m e to re v i ew the B O P do cum ent s a nd w i shed to p r o c e e d w ith th e h e a r in g . B a s e d on s e ve r a l i ns t i tu t i o n al i nf r a c t i ons a nd S ha kur ’ s C a t e gory E i ght c l a s s i f i c a t i on, the he a r i ng e xa m i ne rc a l c ul a t e d a n a ggr e ga t e pa r ol e gu i de l i ne r a nge of “ 11 2+ ” m on ths. T he exam i ner f ou nd th at, g i ven S haku r’ s l ea ders hi p rol e, 5 S h ak u r w as acco u n t ab l e fo r h i s o w n act i o n s as w el l as th e act i o n s o f o th ers in h is ent erpri se . T he exam i ner c on cl ud ed that an yth in g l es s than a 15 -y ea r r e c ons i de r a t i on he a r i ng da t e w oul d de p reci at e t he s e r i ous ne s s of the of f e ns e . T he e x a m in e rf

u r th e rc o m m e n te d th a t S h a ku r“h a s c u rr e n tly s e rv e d ab o u t 1 4 y e a r s in6

c o n f i n e me n t , h o w e v e r , th e s e rv i c e of a n a dd i t i o n a l 1 5 y e a r s i n n o w a y s e e ms e xc e s s i ve c ons i de r i ng the gr a vi ty of the of f e ns e w hi c h i nv o l ve d f

ourm ur de r s a nd se ri ou s i nj uri es t o o thers du ri ng m ul t i pl e c ri m es of vi ol ence . ” T he C om m i s s i on a dopt e d the he a r i ng e xa m i ne r ’ s de c i s i on. In de t e rm i ni ng w he the rt o gr a ntpa r ol e , the C om m i s s i on m us tc ons i de rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd na tur e of the of f e ns e . S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 4206; 28 C . F . R . § 2. 18. A s the C om m i s s i on ob se rved i n i t s order : Y o u w e r e th e o r g a n iz e ro f a r e v o lu tio n a ry m o v e m e n t th a t r e s o r te d to c o m m i t t i n g c r i m e s of

e xtr e m e vi ol e nc e be tw e e n the y e a r s of 1976 a nd 19 81 i nv ol vi ng m ul t i pl e r ob beri es of arm ored vehi cl es and o ther f in a n c ia l in s titu ti o n s . D u r in g th e s e a s s a u ltiv e e v e n ts , f o u rin d iv id u a ls w ere m u r de r e d a nd othe r s w e r e s e r i ous l y i nj ur e d. I n a ddi t i on, y our grou p w as i nv ol v ed in the ki dn api ng of tw o p ri son o ff i ci al s t o eff

ec t th e e sc ape of one of your co-conspi ra t ors w ho w as se rvi ng a l i fe se nt ence for the m urder of a s t at e troop er . T h u s , th e C o m m is s io n c o n c lu d e d th a t th e h e a r in g e x a m in e r ’s d e te rm in a tio n a s to S ha kur ’ s pa r ol e r e c ons i de r a t i on he a r i ng da t e w a s w a rr a nt e d ba s e d on the aggravat i ng fa ct ors des cr i bed abo ve. O n ap p ea l, th e N atio n al A p p ea l B o ar d (“N A B ”) af firm ed th e C o m m issio n ’s deci si on . In i t s dec i si on , the N A B no t ed thatthe C om m i ss i on m i st akenl y s t at ed th a t S h a k u rh a db e e n in c u s to d y f o r 1 6 7 m o n th s , w h e n in f a c t h e h a d b e e n in cust od y f

or20 4 mon ths , or37 months mor e , a s of Fe brua ry 11 , 20 03 . H ow ever , the N A B re

j ec t ed S haku r’ s r equestfo r a m o re leni entdeci si on , fi nd i ng thathe had7

show n n o m i t i gat i n g ci rc um st ance s a nd the C om m i ss i on suff i ci ent l y c on si dere d th e m itig a tin g a n d a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s o f h is c a s e . Sh a k u rth e n f

i l e d th e p r e s e n t§ 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n . Th e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e i s s u e d a R e por ta nd R e co m m enda t i on ( “ R & R ” ) r e c om m e ndi ng de ni a l of S ha kur ’ s pe t i t i on. T h e m ag istrate ju d g e s tated th at th e d istrict co u rt’s re v iew o f th e C o m m issio n ’s de c i s i o n w a s l i mi t e d t o w h e th e r th e Co mmi s s i o n a c t e d a rb i tr a r i l y o r c ap r i c i o us l y or ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n , a n d th e C o m m is s io n ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t r e c e iv e d r a tio n a l b a s is
r e v ie w . A s f

o rS h a k u r ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e C o m m is s io n m is c a lc u la te d h is tim e in c us t ody , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge not e d tha tthe N A B f ound, de s pi t e the
m i sc al cu l a t i on , the r e a s on s gi ve n b y the Comm i s s i on - - a ga i n, the e nu me r a t ed
r e a s o n s in c lu d e d th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e o f f e n s e s o f c o n v ic tio n w h ic h r e s u lte d in num e r ous de a ths a nd the k i d napi ng of tw o l a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c i a l s - - f

orthe de pa r tur e w e r e appr opr i a t e . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ur the rc onc l ude d tha tthe de c i s i ons by the C om m i s s i on a nd the N A B ha d ar a t i ona l ba s i s i n the reco rd, pa r t i cu l a r l y s i nc e , unde rthe C om m i s s i on’ s ow n R ul e s a nd P r oc e dur e s M a nua l , the 15- y e a rr e c ons i derat i o n pe r i od i s de t e rm i ne d ba s e d on the da t e of the he a r i ng r a the rtha n the t i m e s e rve d by the pr i s one ra tthe t i m e of the he a r i ng. T h e m agi s tr a t e j udge a l s o w a s unpe r s ua de d by S ha kur ’ s doubl e - c ount i ng ar gu m ent , part i cul ar l y s i nce C at egory E i gh tca se s l i ke S haku r’ s do n otcont ai n an8

uppe rl i m i tt o the pa r ol e gui de l i ne r a nge . T hus , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d, a ny de c i s i on, s o l o n g as i tw a s s uppor t e d by i ndi vi dua l i z e d f i ndi ngs , w oul d be
w i thi n the parol e gui del i nes f o r a C ateg ory E i gh tca se and n ota departure. In e s s e nc e , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d tha tthe r e c oul d notbe doubl e - c ount i ng f or a C a te g o ry E ig h t o f

f e n s e . A lte rn a t i v e l y , t h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e h e ld th a t, e v e n if C at egory E i gh tdi d h ave a m ax im um ra ng e, do ub l e- coun t i ng di d n otoccur here b e c a u s e t h e n a tu r e a n d s e v e r ity o f th e c r im e s w e r e u s e d a s a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s to depa r tf r om the gu i de l i ne s a f

t e rthe Comm i s s i on de t e rmi ne d tha tthe Cat egory E i ghtgui de l i n es d i d n o ta de qua t e l y a c c ountf orS ha kur ’ s r i s k t o s oc i e ty a nd the s e v e r ity o f

h is a c tio n s . N e x t, th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e je c te d S h a k u r ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h e w a s e n title d to f u r th e rd is c lo s u r e f

r o m th e C o m m is s io n . P r e - h e a r in g d is c lo s u r e is e x c lu s iv e ly gove rne d by 28 C . F . R . § 2. 55. S e e 28 C . F . R . § 2 . 5 6 (g ) . P r i ort o a pa r ol e he a r i ng, a pri s on e r ma y r e qu e s t di s c l os ur e of the “ r e po r t s a nd othe r do c ume nt s t o be used by the C om m i ss i on i n m akin g it s det erm i nat i on . ” 28 C . F . R . § 2 . 55 (a ).

“ [ D ] i s c l os ur e of

doc um e nt s us e d by the C om m i s s i on c a n norm a l l y be a c c om pl i sh ed b y di s c l os ur e of doc um e nt s i n a pr i s one r ’ s i ns t i tut i ona l f i l e . ” I d. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge not e d t h a tS ha kurha d pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e tha tthe C o m m is s io n r e lie d o n d o c u m e n ts n o t p r e v io u s ly d is c lo s e d to S h a k u r .9

F in a lly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e f o u n d n o e rr o rb a s e d o n t h e N A B ’s r e f u s a l to gr a ntS ha kura nunc pr o tunc appl i c a t i on of hi s pa r ol e pr o ceed i ngs t o 1996. T he
m a g is tr a te ju d g e f

ir s t n o t e d th a t it w a s S h a k u r ’s b u r d e n to ap p ly f o rp a r o le c ons i de r a t i on a nd he ha d pr of f e r e d no e vi de nc e s how i ng tha the d i d s o pr i ort o the M a y 2002 pr oc e e di ngs . T hus , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d, S ha kurw a i ve d a ny pa r ol e c ons i de r a t i on pr i ort o M ay 2 0 0 2 . M or e ove r , e ve n i f he ha d appl i e d f

or parol e c on si dera t i on i n 1 99 6, he di d n o t r ecei ve a hear i ng un t i l 20 02 , w hi ch w as th e d a te u s e d f

o rth e r e c o n s id e r a tio n p e r io d . O ve rS ha kur ’ s obj e c t i ons , the di s tr i ct co u rta dopt e d the R e por ta nd R e c om m e nda t i on a nd de ni e d S ha kur ’ s pe t i t i on. T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr ora nd a f f i rm base d on th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s r e a s o n in g in th e R & R , a s a d o p te d b y t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, a s to S h a k u r ’s a r g u m e n ts c o n c e r n in g th e C o m m is s i o n ’ s c a lc u la tio n o f h is
r e c ons i de r a t i on da t e , the C om m i s s i on’ s a l l e ge d doubl e - c ount i ng, a nd the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the C om m i s s i ons ’ di s c l os ur e t o S ha kurpr i ort o i t s pa r ol e de c i s i on. S im p l y p u t, w e c a n n o t s a y th e d e c is io n o f th e C o m m is s io n in v o lv e d f la g r a n t, unw a rr a nt e d, oruna uthor i z e d a c t i on s o a s t o c ons t i tut e a n ab u se of the C om m i s s i on’ s br oa d di s c r e t i on i n thi s a r e a . G l um b, 891 F . 2d a t873.10

A s f o rS h a k u r ’s a r g u m e n t c o n c e rn in g n u n c p r o tu n c c r e d it f o rh is
r e c ons i de r a t i on heari n g t o 1996, w he n he a l l e ge s he i ni t i a l l y w a s e l i gi bl e f or pa r ol e , w e a l s o f

i nd n o erro rf

orthe f ol l ow i ng r e a s ons , w hi c h di f f e rs l i ght l y f

r om the R & R . A pr i s one rbe a r s the bur de n of appl y i ng f

orpa r ol e w he n e l i gi bl e . S e e 28 C . F . R . § 2. 11. A pr i s one rm us ta l s o s e rve a m i n i m u m t erm be f or e be c om i ng e l i gi bl e f

orpa r ol e . S ee 2 8 C . F . R . § 2. 12. A pr i s one rs e rvi ng a t e rm of i m pri sonm entof ov erthi rty y ea rs i s e l i gi bl e f or re l ea se on parol e a ft erse rvi ng t en ye ar s. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 4 20 5 (re peal ed by P ub . L . 98 -473 , 98 S t at . 20 27 (198 4)). I n r e je c tin g S h a k u r ’s a r g u m e n t f o r a n u n c p r o tu n c ap p lic a tio n o f h is p a r o le proceedi ng s t o 1 99 6, the di stri ctcourtst at ed thatS haku r pre se nt ed no evi dence thathe appl i ed for parol e a ny ea rl i erthan 2 00 2. F rom ou r r evi ew , ho w ever , S h a k u rs ta te d in h is v e r if ie d p e titio n th a t h e ap p lie d f o rp a r o le c o n s id e r a t i o n in F ebruary19 96 . C f. G ordo n v . W at son, 62 2 F . 2d 12 0, 12 3 (5th C ir. 198 0) (w hen ba s e d on pe r s ona l know l e dge f r om aco m p et ents our c e , ve r i f i e d pl e a di ngs m a y be tr e a t e d the s a m e a s a f

f i da vi t s f ore vi de nt i a ry p urpos e s ) . B e c a us e S ha kurs t a t e d i n a ve r i f i e d pe t i t i on tha the appl i e d f orpa r ol e i n 1996, the di s tr i ct co u rte rr e d by f i ndi ng t h ere w a s no e vi de nc e s how i ng tha the appl i e d f orpa r ol e be f

or e M a y 2002. H o w e v e r , w e w i l l n o t r e v e r s e o n th is b a s is d u e to th e f a c t th a t w e a g r e e w ith11

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a lte rn a te h o ld i n g , th a t e v e n if S h a k u rh a d ap p lie d f

o rp a r o le in 1 9 6 , h e w a s n o t e n title d to n u n c p r o tu n c r e lie f . A s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p u t it: E ve n i f P e t i t i one rha d appl i e d f ora n i ni t i a l pa r ol e e l i gi b i l i t y he a r i ng i n 1 9 9 6 , a ny cl ai m thathe di d n otre ce i ve such a hear i ng i s m oo t , as he r e c e i ve d a pa r ol e c ons i de r a t i on h eari n g i n 2002. A ttha tt i m e , the C o m m issio n d eter m in ed th at, g iv en th e s er io u sn es s o f P etit io n er ’s of f e ns e s , ar e l ease da t e w i thi n the ne xtf i f t e e n y e a r s w a s not w a rr a n te d . A s s e t f

o r th [ ab o v e ], th e f

if te e n - y e a r r e c o n s id e r a tio n d a te i s det erm i ned from the dat e of the heari ng . T hu s, i n P et i t i on er ’ s c ase, the fi ft ee n-ye arre consid er at i on dat e s ho ul d h ave been, and w as , se t f r o m th e d a t e o f

th e h e a r i n g . Ne i th e rth e C o m m i s s i o n n o rth e NA B abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by refus i ng t o a dva nc e the r e c ons i de r a t i on he a r i ng da t e t o 2011. I tw as S ha kur ’ s bur de n t o e s t abl i s h pa r ol e e l i gi bi l i ty , both i n the i ns t a nt pr oc e e di ngs a nd i n 1996, w he n he c l a i m s he f i r s tappl i e d f

orapa r ol e he a r i ng. T he pa r ol e gui de l i n es do notpr ovi de ac us t om a ry m a xi m um num be rof m onths t o be s e r v e d b e f

o r e a Ca t e g o ry Ei g h t o f f e n d e r ma y b e p a r o l e d , b u t r a th e r c o n s i de r t he e x p i r a t i o n o f

th e s e n t e n c e t o b e th e m a x i m u m l i m i t . S e e 2 8 C . F . R . § 2 . 2 0 n . 1 . On th is r e c o rd , S h ak u r h as n o t sh o w n an ab u se o f d iscr etio n in th e C o m m issio n ’s f i n d i n g s a s t o th e s e r i o u s n e s s o f th e u n d e r l y i n g o f

f e n s e s a n d , f

o raCa t e g o ry Ei g ht o f f e n d e r , th e s e in d iv id u a liz e d f in d in g s o n a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s s u p p o r t th e p a r o le
r e c o n s id e r a tio n d a te c a lc u la te d b y th e C o m m is s io n . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm the deni al of § 2 24 1 rel i ef . AF F I RME D.