F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 3, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1606 2 Non-Argum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 03-00204 -CV -W CO- 2 ROBERT FORD HALL, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MILTON E. NIX, JR., GARFIELD HAMMONS, J R., BETTY ANN COOK, EU GENE P. WAL KE R, J. M ICHAEL LIGHT, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(S ep te m be r 13, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Th e B oa rd a do pte d th is 9 0 p e rc e nt- to- se rv e po lic y on 9 D e c e mbe r 1 99 7 a

nd a pp lie d it to a ll 1 inmates convicte d afte r 1 January 1998. 2 Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant R obe rt

F or d H al l, an inm at e in the G eo rg iapr iso n sy ste m , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of De fendant-Appellees, m em bers of the G eorgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles (th e “ Bo ard ”), d is m is si ng Hall ’s sec ti on 19 83 cla im s, 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 . No r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. H al l w as c onvi ct ed

of ve hic ular hom ic ide ari sin g f ro m r ec kle ss dri vin g and of a separ ate m isdem eanor char ge of driving while it was less saf e to operate a ve hi cl e. The a ct s fo r whi ch he was c on vi ct edwere co m m it te d i n M arch of 1 99 7. Fo r the se c ri m es , H al l w as se nte nc ed to a fi ft ee n- y ear te rm , w iththi rt ee n y ears to serve and the balance probated. T he Board fir st consid ered H all for par ole under a policy that required inm ates convicted of one or m ore of som e tw enty enum erate d offenses to serve ninety

perce nt of their sentences before bec om ing eligi ble for an ini tia l paro le he ar ing . U nde r thi s po lic y - - ad opt ed

by the Bo ar d a ft er

H al l com m itted the acts of conviction -- Ha ll’ s tentative parole m onth (“ TP M”) w as 1 determ ined by

the Board to be May

2009 . Absent this po licy change, H all’ s TP M w oul d have be enc al cu late d un de r the gr id s y ste m of the P ar ole D ec isi onWe assume for pur poses of this appea l -- and the Boa rd does not ar gue other

wise -- that, as the 2 Jac ks on c ourt c on c lud e d, a

pp lic atio n o f t

he B oa rd ’s 90 pe rc e nt- to-serve po lic y to i nmate s who se crimes we re c ommitt ed bef ore the policy

was a dopted would implicate the e x post facto c lause. 3 G uid el ine s; unde r the gr id s y ste m , H al l’ s T PM w oul d have r equir ed - - subj ec t t o di sc ret io na ry

ad jus tm en t b y

th e Bo ard-- co ns id erab ly fewer m on th s- to -s erv e. The r etroactive application of the 90 percent-to-serve policy to inm ates w hose of fe nse c ondu ct

pr e- date d a dopt ionof

that po lic y

w as de te rmine d to co nst itute an e x po st f

ac to v iol at ionin Ja ck son v. S tate Bo ar d of P ar dons and Paro le s, N o. 2:0 1- CV -0 68- W CO ; 20 02 W L 160 9804 (N . D . G a. 200 2) . A ft er the 2 Jackson decisio n, the Boar d resolved (i) to apply the 90 percent-to-serve policy onl y to tho se of

fe nde rs w ho c om

m itt ed the ir c ri m es on o r af

te r 1 January

199 8; and (ii) to rec onsid er f

or parole those offenders who comm itted their offenses be fo re 1 January

199 8 to w hom

the 90 p er ce nt- to- se rv e pol ic y ha d be enappl ie d. H al l t ak es iss ue w iththe Bo ar d’ s po st- Ja ck son ca lc ulatio n of his T PM . H al l ar gue s th at

the Bo ar d’ s os te nsi ble r ec onsi de ratio n of his paro le r el ea se date w as a s h am; a cc o rd i n g t o Ha l l , o n l y a t o k en ad ju s tm en twa s m ad e t o m as kth e B o ar d ’s c o n t i nu e de x p o s tf

a c t o ap p l i c a t i o no f

i t s 9 0 p e r c e n t - t o - s e rv e p o l i c y. H a l l c l a i ms he wa s entitled to a TPM under the Guidelines grid score -- 16 m onth s -- a s oppo se d to the 120 m onths- to- se rv e de te rmine d by the Bo ar d init s po st- Ja ck sonThe Boar d twice reconsider ed Hall’s TPM afte r the Jackson dec ision. In November 2002, the 3 Boa rd dete rmined to requir e Ha ll to serve 120 months befor e par ole, 20 months less than the period re qu ir e d und e r t

he 90 pe rc e nt- to- se rv e po lic y . T he B oa rd ’s c a lc ulatio ns we re ba se d o n a c ri me sever ity level of V . Hall’s crime sever ity level was later corr ecte d to be a c rime seve rity level of IV. Nonethele ss, on 29 Septe mber 2003, whe n the B oard a g ain re considere d Hall’s TPM in the light of the level IV cor

rec tion, it determined that no cha ng e in Hall’s TPM was w arr anted. 4 re co nsi de ratio n of

H al l’ s T PM . H al l c ont en ds that the Bo ar d’ s a ct s are in vio latio n of c onst itutio na l pr ote ct ion s un de r the e x po st f ac to and d

ue pr oc es s c lause s. About Hall’ s ex post facto claim , the district court concluded that Hall had pr of fe re d in suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce that a

ne wlawor

r eg ulatio n or

pol ic y w as be ing re tr oa ct ive ly

appl ie d by

the Bo ar d. W e ag re e. Whil e H al l i s lo ng o n hy pe rb ole , he is sho rt on evidence to supp ort his conclus ory allegations. N aked accusations are no s ubst itute f

or e vid en ce and d o no t de fe at sum m ar y j udgm en t. S ee L ei gh v . W ar ne r Br os. I nc . , 212 F . 3d 1 210, 121 7 ( 11 Ci r. 200 0) ( co nc lus or y a lle gatio ns th without specific fac ts in support have no probative value). T he rec ord refle cts that the Board exer cised its discretion to deviate from the Par ole Guidelines grid score ba se d onspe ci fi c re as ons se t our in the Bo ar d’ s no tic e date d 29 S ep te m be r 2003 . 3 No sufficie nt facts w ere proffer ed to create a m aterial issue of f act on Ha ll’ s ex post facto allegations . The r ecord shows that Ha ll is being required to serve m ore of the se nte nc e im

pose d f or his a ct s be ca

use of the Bo ar d’ s e xe rc ise of

dis cr et ion ; the r ec or d f

ai ls t o su ppor t H al l’ s c la im

that a ne wlaw , r

ule or pol ic y is be ing re tr oa ct ive ly

appl ie d.5

About H al l’ s du e pr oc es s c la im s, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed c or re ct ly that, unde r Su lte nf

uss v. S now , 35 F . 3d 1 494, 150 2 ( 11 Ci r. 199 4) , H al l ha s no th co gni za ble li be rty

int er es t i n paro le . S ee S ult en fu ss, ( “ [v ] ie w ing G eo rg ia ’ s paro le sy ste m in its e nti re ty , w e co nc lud e that no pr ote ct ed li be rty int er es t i n paro le is created”); Jones v. Ray , 279 F. 3d 94 4, 946 (11 Cir. 2001 ) (G eorgia inm ates are th fo re cl ose d by

S ult en fu ss f

ro m m ak ing ali be rty

int er es t du e pr oc es s c la im ba se d on state lawand n o f

ed er al c onst itutio na l r igh t t o paro le e xis ts i nde pe nde nt o f a state created liberty

interest). AFFIR MED.