Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 41029 ALFRED ELLI OTT Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. FR AN CI SCO J . Q U I N TA N A, D e put y W ar de n R espon den t - A pp el l ee A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 06- C V
- 405 B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n d H IG G IN B O T H A M a n d H AY N E S , C i r c u it Ju dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A lfr e dE llio tt , fe d e r a l p r i s o n e r#9 7 9 6 5 -0 2 4 , a p p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is 28 U . S . C . § 2241 p et i t i on ch al l en gi n g t h e p rocedures usedt o m odi f y h i s parol e. We a f f i r m. El l i o t ta r gue s t hatt he U ni t e d St at e s P a r o l eCo m m i s s i o n(th eCo m m i s s i o n) contravened 28 C . F . R . § 2. 28(f ) by sched u l i n g h i s c ase f or s peci alrec on si derati on w i t ho utt he c o nc ur r e nc e o f t w o pa r o l e c o m m i s s i o ne r s . H e a l s o a r gue s t hatt he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 41029

2 Com m i s s i o n’ s de c i s i o n t o de l ayhi s pa r o l e da t e vi o l at e d 18 U . S. C. § 4 20 3(c ) a nd 28 C . F . R . § 28. 13(c) b ecau se the C om m i ssi on fai l ed t o ob t ai n t h e concurrence of t w o he ar i ng exa m i ner s. Th es e arg um ent s w er e rai se d nei t heri n E l l i ot t ’ s appeal bef or e the N at i onalA ppeal s B oar d n ori n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on; theyw er e i nst ead rai sed f

or th e f

i rstt i m e i n hi s s u m m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on an d w ere not ad dressed by the di st ri ctcourt . O u r authori t i es are spl i t on w h et h er t h e di st ri ct c o ur tha d t o c o ns t r ue t he i nc l us i o n o f ne w ar gum e nt s i n t he s um m ar y j udg m e nt m o tio n a s am o tio n t o a m e n dt h e p le a d in g s . Compa re C u tre rav. L o u isia n aS ta te Uni v. , 4 29 F. 3d1 08 , 11 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5) , w i t h G a n th e rv . Ing le , 75 F. 3d 207, 211–12 ( 5t h C i r . 199 6 ). Even ass um i ng t hatt he di st r i c tc our ts houl d have t reat ed E l l i ot ’ s s u m m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on as em bod yi n g a m oti o n t oa m e nd, a nd t h at th e courtshou l d h ave g ra n te d it , t h e “ m ot i on ” m ay be d en i ed w h ere g r a n tin gth e a m e n d m e n t w o u ldb e fu tile . L ef f allv. D allas Ind epend ent S chool D ist. , 2 8 F .3 d5 2 1 , 5 2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); see als o A d d i ngt on v. F arm er’ s E levat or Mu t . In s. Co. , 650 F. 2d 663, 667 ( 5t h C i r . 1981) (“ C l ear l y, if t he c om pl ai ntas am en ded w ou l d st i l lbe subjec tt o di sm i ssal , no ab u se of di scr et i on occ u rs w h en am en dm en ti s den i ed. ” ) . B eca u se E l l i ot tdi d n otrai se t h ese argum en t s bef ore t h e N ati on al A pp eal s B oard, h e fai l ed t o exh au sthi s adm i n i st rat ive rem edi es, Fu l ler v. R i ch , 11 F . 3 d61 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 4 ), an dth e d is tr i ct did n ot ab u se it s di s c r e t i o n i n i m pl i c i t l y de nyi ng El l i o t t ’ s m o t i o n t o a m e nd h i s pe t i t i o n. E l l i ott a l soar gues t hathe di d notr ec eive t i m ely not i c e o f hi s spe c i al r e c o ns i de r at i o n he ar i ng. H o w e ve r , t he r e c o r d di s c l o s e s , and El l i o t tha s s ho w n, n o prej u di ce ari si n g t h eref rom . H e h as accordi n gl y n ot “ show [ n ] t h at th e act i on of t h e [ B ] oard w as so u n l aw f u las t o m ak e hi s c u st odyi n vi ol ati on of t h e l aw s of th e U n ite dS ta te s ” a n dis n o t e n tit le dt o h a b e a s re lie f. B row n v. L u n dgren , 5 2 8 F . 2 d10 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (5th C i r. 19 7 6 ). E l l i ott’ s con ten ti on tha t he w a s en titl edto p r e h e a rin gd is c lo s u r eo f K a th le e nP i n n e r ’s m e m o r a n d u m re c o m m e n d in gth a t h is c as e b e r eo pened ba se d on new i nf or m at i on i s bas el es s bec ause t hat m em oran du m o n ly provi ded t h e basi s f or authori zi n g t h e rec on si derati onN o. 07- 41029

3 he ar i ng butw as no tus e d b y t he Com m i s s i o n i n m ak i ng i t s pa r o l e de t e r m i n a ti o n. S ee18 U . S . C . § 42 08(b) ; 28 C . F . R . § 2. 55(g) . B ecau se E l l i ot trai ses f or th e f i rst t i m e o n a p p e a l t he i s s ue o f hi s e nt i t l e m e nt t o a r e p r e s e nt a t iv e a thi s spe c i al r e c o n s id e r a tio n h e a r in g , w e d o n o t c o n s id e rth a t c la im . S ee Pag e v. Un i t ed S ta te s Pa ro leCo m m ’n , 651 F . 2d108 3, 108 7 ( 5th C i r. 198 1) . E l l i ot tf u rt h er argu es t hathe r e c e ive d i ns uf f i c i e ntno t i f

i c at i o n o f

t he r e as o ns s upp o r t i ng t he d e c is io n to re ta r dh is p a r o le d a te . T h e r e c o r ds u p p o r ts a d e te r m in a tio n th a t h is n o tic e w a s a d e q u a te . S ee S h ah i dv. C raw f ord , 59 9 F . 2 d66 6 , 66 8 , 67 1

– 7 2 ( 5 th C i r . 1979) . Regar dl es s, h e has show n no prej udi c e and i ndeed do es notc hal l enge t he s ubst ance of

t he r ul i ng. Fi nall y, w e r ej e c tEl li o t t ’ s c o n t e nt i o n t hatt he i nf o r m at i o n c o nt ai ne d i n t he U n i t ed S t ates D epa rt m en tof Ju st i ce l et t er w as not “ n ew ” adv erse i n f orm ati on f or purp oses of

§ 2. 28(f

) . Th e i n f

orm a t i on contai n ed i n t h e l et t er w as not c o n s id e r e dinm a k in gh is in itia l p a r o le d e te r m in a tio n a n dc o u lds e rv e a s ab a s is fo r r e o p e n in gh is p r o c e e d in g s . C f. S c h is e lm a n v . Un it e dS ta te s Pa ro leCo m m ’n , 85 8 F. 2d1 23 2, 12 38 - 39 ( 7t h Ci r . 19 88 ) (ho l di ng t hati nf o r m at i o n i n e xi s t e nc e b ut n ot con sider edat an i n i ti a lp a r o le h ea ri n g m a y n ev erth eless m a y b e u sed at a s p e c ia l r e c o n s id e r a t io n h e a r in ga s “n e w ” in fo r m a t io n to r e t a r da n in m a t e ’s p a r o le d a te ); Far de l la v . G ar r i son , 6 9 8 F .2d 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 (4t h C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) ( sa m e ); Iut eriv. Nard oza , 6 62 F. 2d1 59 , 1 61 ( 2dCi r . 198 1) (ho l di ng t hatw hi l e t he s ubs t anc e o f

t he s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng w as pr e s e nt e d t o t he Com m i s s i o n a tt he par ol e he ar i ng, t he sent enc i ng t r ansc r i ptand t he s um m ar y r epo r tpr epar ed by t he pr os ec ut orhad notbe en c ons i der ed by t he C om m i ss i on and, t her ef or e, w as d ee m edn ew e v id e n c e ); Mc C la n a h a n v . Mu lc ro me , 6 3 6 F .2d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 1 (10 th C ir . 19 80 ) (ho l di ng t hat“ [t] he di s c o ve r y o f a n e r r o ri n the se ve r i t y r at i ng andt he di spari t y i n parol e deci si on s as t o codefen da n t s c an b e con si dered a s ‘ n ew ’w h en th e ele m e n ts a re b ro u g h t to g e th e r b e for e th e C o m m iss ion e r”). A F F I RMED;MOTI ON T O E X P E DI T E A P P E A L DE NI E D.