Court Opinion

ID: 2963789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:14.093362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:32.933148
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 20, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1103 

                                     DALE TUTTLE,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, ET AL.,

                               Respondents, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Dale Tuttle on brief pro se.
            ___________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney,  and David  S. Mackey,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Pro  se appellant Dale Tuttle,  who is
                      __________   ___  __

            imprisoned  in Massachusetts on  an armed robbery conviction,

            appeals  from the  district court's  dismissal of  his habeas

            petition.  We affirm.

                      Tuttle  committed  the  robbery  for  which  he  is

            presently confined while on federal parole.  Accordingly, the

            United  States Parole  Commission  issued a  warrant for  his

            arrest,  but  placed  it  as   a  detainer  against  him   in

            Massachusetts.  In his habeas petition, Tuttle sought removal

            of  the detainer, alleging that the Commission had not held a

            parole  revocation hearing or  conducted timely dispositional

            review of the detainer.  Both parties agree that, in order to

            obtain habeas relief, Tuttle  must show that the Commission's

            alleged delay has prejudiced him.

                      Tuttle argues that  he has been prejudiced  because

            mitigating evidence that might have induced the Commission to

            permit  his continued  release on  parole despite  the parole

            violation  has been  lost during  the period  of delay.   For

            purposes  of this opinion, we assume, but do not decide, that

            the  loss  of  mitigating   evidence  relevant  to  a  parole

            revocation hearing  or dispositional review  would constitute

            prejudice.1   See  United States v.  Williams, 558  F.2d 224,
                          ___  _____________     ________

                                
            ____________________

            1.  A few courts have also  suggested that due process rights
            may be implicated if delay in executing a warrant lodged as a
            detainer  might result  in  the loss  of mitigating  evidence
            relevant to the decision to revoke parole.  See United States
                                                        ___ _____________
            v. Williams, 558  F.2d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1977); U.S. ex rel.
               ________                                      ____________

                                         -3-

            227 (5th Cir. 1977) ("even if [a parolee] admits the [parole]

            violation, he  may be  prejudiced if delay  has impaired  his

            ability to present evidence of mitigating circumstances  that

            might affect the decision to incarcerate him").  But, because

            Tuttle's  claims of  prejudice  are  conclusory  in  critical

            respects  or otherwise  unpersuasive, habeas  relief was  not

            warranted,  nor was an evidentiary  hearing.  See McDonald v.
                                                          ___ ________

            New Mexico Parole Board,  955 F.2d 631, 634 (10th  Cir. 1991)
            _______________________

            (dismissal of habeas petition  asserting delay in executing a

            warrant   was  justified   in   part   because   petitioner's

            allegations  of prejudice were conclusory), cert. denied, 504
                                                        ____________

            U.S. 920 (1992).

                      Tuttle claims that his probation officers no longer

            remember his good conduct while on parole, but he proffers no

            confirming  statement by  those officers  and does  not state

            that they  are unavailable  to provide  such statements.   He

            also alleges  that he  cannot show his  continuous employment

            while on  parole, because "over the years" his employers have

            moved away or gone out of business.  Even if  true, this fact

            would  not  show  prejudice.    Tuttle  identifies  only  one

            employer, but  he gives no  details why witnesses  or records

                                
            ____________________

            Caruso v. U.S. Board  of Parole, 570 F.2d 1150, 1154 (3d Cir.
            ______    _____________________
            1978).  Ordinarily,  a parole revocation hearing  need not be
            held  until the warrant is  executed.  See  Moody v. Daggett,
                                                   ___  _____    _______
            429 U.S.  78, 89 (1976).  In  view of our disposition herein,
            we need  not  address the  question  raised in  Williams  and
                                                            ________
            Caruso.
            ______

                                         -4-

            from that employer  are unavailable,  and he  does not  state

            when  they became  unavailable.   See  Poynor v.  U.S. Parole
                                              ___  ______     ___________

            Comm'n,  878 F.2d  275, 277  (9th Cir.  1989) (to  constitute
            ______

            prejudice, the mitigating evidence must have been lost during

            the  period of  delay by  the Commission).   Finally,  Tuttle

            alleges that  his girlfriend, who  died in  1990, could  have

            testified  to  certain facts  supporting  Tuttle's allegation

            that he committed the  robbery in order to  help her pay  her

            medical costs.  Tuttle does not say that she did not have the

            money for treatment.  The loss  of his girlfriend's testimony

            was not prejudicial.   Tuttle mentions that there  are "other

            witnesses" who  could also attest  to these "facts"  but with

            whom he has  "lost touch."  He does not say  when he fell out

            of contact with these witnesses  or whether he ever attempted

            to reach them.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -5-