Opinion ID: 510947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Change of Parole Eligibility

Text: 10 Davis also alleges that the district court erred in refusing to issue an order resentencing him to parole eligibility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4205(b)(2). Davis argues that the court rendered the prior judgment of parole under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4205(a) after consideration of a presentence report that included his now reversed state conviction. In rejecting this claim, the district court stated that it did not rely upon the state conviction in imposing parole eligibility. We shall affirm a sentence where the trial judge disavows reliance on the challenged sentencing information. Jones v. United States, 783 F.2d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir.1986); see also Portillo v. United States, 588 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir.1978). 11 AFFIRMED.