Opinion ID: 483876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the presumption

Text: 30 Roberts alleges that the Parole Commission relied on an unconstitutional presumption in determining that Roberts played a managerial or proprietary role, not a peripheral role, in the conspiracy. The Commission's guidelines define a peripheral role in drug offenses as conduct such as that of a person hired as a deckhand on a marijuana boat, a person hired to help offload marijuana, a person with no special skills hired as a courier of drugs on a commercial airline flight, or a person hired as a chauffeur in a drug transaction. This definition does not include persons with decision-making or supervisory authority, persons with relevant special skills ... or persons who finance such operations. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 2.20 chapter 13, subchapter B (1986). Roberts argues that an internal regulation applying this definition created an impermissible presumption: A proprietary or managerial role is presumed unless the Commission has sufficient credible information to establish otherwise. U.S. Parole Commission, Training Aid 83-002 (Jan. 1, 1983). 2 Roberts also argues that this regulation is invalid because it was not promulgated in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. 31 The Commission made a specific finding that Roberts played an integral part in the drug conspiracy. There is no evidence in the record that the Commission relied on any presumption in making this finding. The presentence report, upon which the Commission is entitled to rely, contains evidence supporting the determination of a managerial role. The evidence Roberts offers to challenge this determination was available to the sentencing judge and to the Parole Commission. (How the Commission weighed this evidence is almost completely at its discretion and is the subject of Roberts' second ground for challenging the determination. See discussion below.) Because the Commission did not rely on the challenged presumption, we need not decide the constitutionality of the presumption or the propriety of its promulgation. Roberts' claims on these grounds are without merit.