T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E G / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B R E N T S T E V E N S H E R M A N , S r ., P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. E D W A R D F . R E I L L Y , J r ., c h a irm a n ; e t a l., R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s . N o. 07- 35337 D . C . N o . C V - 0 5 - 0 1 2 5 2 - O MP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon O w e n M . P a nne r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F eder al pri soner B re ntS t even S herm an, S r. appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 1 h abea s pet i t i on . S herm an 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE G / Res ea r ch 07- 35337 2 c h a lle n g e s h is p a r o le r e v o c a tio n o n d u e p r o c e s s a n dF o u rth A m e n d m e n t g r o u n d s . T he s t a yof

thi s c a s e , e nt e r e d on A ugus t6, 2009, i s l i f t e d. S he rm a n’ s m ot i on f or pr om ptr e s ol ut i on of

thi s appe a l , f

i l e d J ul y6, 2009, i s gr a nt e d. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm . F i r s t , S he rm a n c ont e nds tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d bythe P ar ol e C om m i ss i on ’ s del ayi n i ss ui ng a par ol e vi ol at or w arrant . B ec ause S herm an f a ile dto e s tab lis h th e r e q u is ite p r e ju d ic e , se e Meado r v . Kno w les , 990 F . 2d 503, 5 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) , th is c la im is w ith o u t m e r it. S eco n d , S h erm an co n t en d s th ath i s d u e p ro cess ri g h t s w ere v i o l at ed b ecau se hi s par ol e off

i ce r a l l egedl y l i ed atthe re vo ca t i on hear i ng . B ec ause S herm an had an op po rtun i ty t o cross -e xam i ne the offi ce r a tthe heari ng , hi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e n o t v io la te d . See M

orrise y v . B re w er , 40 8 U . S . 47 1, 48 9 (19 72 ) ( st at i ng that m i ni m a l due pr oc e s s pr ot e c t i ons appl i c abl e t o pa r ol e r e voc a t i on he a r i ng i nc l ude r ig h t to c o n f

r o n t a n dc r o s s - e x a m in e a d v e r s e w itn e s s e s ) . T hi rd, S herm an cont ends thathi s par ol e vi ol at or w arrantw as no tsupp ort ed b yp r o b ab le c au s e a n dh e n c e v io la te dth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. W e r e je c te dth is a r gum e nti n She rm an v . U ni te d States P ar ole C om m is s i on , 5 0 2 F .3 d8 6 9 , 8 8 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng tha t“ the F ourth A m e ndm e ntdoe s notr e qui r e a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve parol e vi ol at or w arrantt o b e s up po rt ed by oath o r a ff i rm at i on ”) .E G / Res ea r ch 07- 35337 3 F ourth, S he rm a n c ont e nds tha tthe P a r ol e C om m i s s i on vi ol a t e d hi s due p ro cess ri g h t s b y h o l d i n g a seco n drev o cat i o n h eari n g sev en m o n th s aft er th e fi rst hear i ng . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thatthe C om m i ss i on di d n oti ni t i at e anew h eari n g , b u trath er co n t i n u ed th e o ri g i n al h eari n g , i s n o tcl earl y erro n eo u s. F i fth, and rel at edl y, S herm an cont ends thatthi s s even-m on th d el ayvi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s. B ec ause S herm an fa i l ed t o est abl i sh the re qu i si t e pre j ud i ce , V arga s v . U

ni ted States P arol e Com m ’n , 8 6 5 F .2 d1 9 1 , 1 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) , th is c la im is w ith o u t m e r it. S i xth, S he rm a n c ont e nds tha tthe r e voc a t i on pr oc e e di ngs vi ol a t e d due pr oc e s s be c aus e the C om m i s s i on f a i l e d t o pr ove f

r audul e nti nt e ntbe y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . T he heari ng exam i ner’ s app l i ca t i on of the prepon derance s ta n d a r dw a s p r o p e r . Se e Standle e v . R hay , 5 5 7 F .2 d1 3 0 3 , 1 3 0 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) . F urtherm ore, the C om m i ss i on ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on t o revok e par ol e bas ed o n th is c h a r g e w a s n o t s o a rb itr a ryo rc ap r ic io u s a s to v io la te d u e p r o c e s s . See B enny v. U

ni ted States P arol e Com m ’n , 295 F . 3d 977, 981- 82 ( 9th C i r . 2002) (s t at i ng thatC ou rt ’ s j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew P ar ol e C om m i ss i on ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on s i s l i m i t ed). S ev en th , S h erm an co n t en d s th ath i s d u e p ro cess ri g h t s w ere v i o l at ed b ecau se the heari ng exam i ner r evi se d h i s f raud l oss c al cul at i on , re sul t i ng i n an i ncre as edE G / Res ea r ch 07- 35337 4 se veri ty r at i ng and l on ger r ec om m ended revocat i on se nt ence , on l y a ft erthe hear i ng . S herm an re ce i ved n ot i ce of the basi s f or the det erm i nat i on and exerci se d h is o p p o rtu n ityto ap p e a l th e d e te rm in a tio n a d m in is tr a tiv e ly . A c c o r d in g ly , th is c la im f a ils . See B ow les v . T

e nnant , 613 F . 2d 776, 779 ( 9th C i r . 1980) ( no due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on w he r e pr os pe c t i ve pa r ol e e w a s onl yi nf orm e d of ba s i s f or se veri ty r at i ng i n n ot i ce of ac t i on af t erhear i ng bu thad o pp ortun i ty t o app ea l a d m in is tr a tiv e ly ) . E i ghth, S he rm a n c ont e nds tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o i m m e di a t e t e rm i na t i on of p a r o le s u p e rv is io n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) b e c au s e h is c o m b in e de a r ly te rm in a tio n a n dp a r o le r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g w a s n o t h e ldw ith in f iv e y e a r s o f

h is rel ease o n p aro l e. T h i s arg u m en ti s fo recl o sed b y B e nny , 295 F . 3d a t982- 985 (hol di ng thatfa i l ure t o h ol d ear l y t erm i nat i on hear i ng w i thi n fi ve ye ar s a s r equi re d unde r§ 4211( c ) ( 1) e nt i t l e s pa r ol e e t o c ons i de r e d de c i s i on on t e rm i na t i on, not im m e d ia te te rm in a tio n o f p a r o le s u p e rv is io n ) . F i na l l y , S he rm a n c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on bynot i nd i vi du al l y a dd re ss i ng ea ch of hi s pendi ng m ot i on s and re qu es t s. T he di stri ct co u rt ac ted w ith in it s d iscr etio n ary p o w er s in d ism issin g as m o o t S h er m an ’s p e n d in g m o tio n s a n dr e q u e s ts . AF F I RME D.