Opinion ID: 567475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deviation from the Parole Guidelines

Text: 12 Malik also contends that the Commission acted arbitrarily in setting his presumptive parole date outside the Parole Guidelines. He argues that the reasons provided by the Commission for departing are ambiguous and not in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4206(c). Section 4206(c) requires that the Commission give the prisoner written notice stating with particularity the reasons for its determination, including a summary of information relied upon. Further, Malik contends that the Commission's reasons do not accurately reflect his offense. 13 The Notice of Action stated the following reason as justification for the Commission's decision to go beyond the Parole Guidelines: You held a leadership role in a large-scale ongoing sophisticated heroin importation network which operated since mid-1980 and which you continued to operate even while serving an earlier term for importation/distribution of heroin. 14 Malik argues that the Commission's words large scale, on going, and sophisticated are ambiguous, and, therefore, the Commission's use of such words does not conform to section 4206(c)'s requirements. Even if the words sophisticated and large scale, are considered too vague, see Misasi v. United States Parole Commission, 835 F.2d 754, 757 (10th Cir.1987), the Notice was sufficient because it adequately set out at least three reasons for the Commission's decision. Cf. Augustine v. Brewer, 821 F.2d 365, 371 (7th Cir.1987) (decision to go beyond the Parole Guidelines may be supported by one aggravating factor); Romano v. Baer, 805 F.2d 268, 271 n. 1 (7th Cir.1986). 15 The Commission informed Malik that incarceration beyond the Parole Guidelines was warranted because since mid-1980 he operated a heroin importation scheme, which he continued to operate from within the prison walls, while he was serving a sentence for an earlier heroin conviction. Additionally, the Notice stated that Malik played a leadership role in the offense. 16 The continuous or ongoing nature of the crime is a rational consideration for the Commission. See Romano, 805 F.2d 268 (7th Cir.1986). The prisoner's role in the offense is also an appropriate consideration. See Pilotto v. United States Parole Commission, 857 F.2d 474, 476 (8th Cir.1988). Additionally, the departure was justified by Malik's continued drug-trafficking activities from within the prison where he was incarcerated for an earlier drug offense. Maddox v. United States Parole Commission, 821 F.2d 997, 1001 (5th Cir.1987). Furthermore, Malik's role in the offense and the continuous nature of the offense are well documented in the presentence report, upon which the Commission was entitled to rely. Thus, the Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in setting Malik's release date outside the Parole Guidelines.