Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perroton v. Seifert

filed*fn*: January 6, 1994.

JON ROBERT PERROTON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
W. SEIFERT, WARDEN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CV-90-6594-MLR. Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Sneed, Noonan and Trott, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Jon Robert Perroton, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.*fn1 Perroton contends (1) the United States Parole Commission abused its discretion by extending his parole release date beyond the applicable parole guidelines range, (2) the Sentencing Guidelines should be applied on his behalf, and (3) he has a liberty interest requiring that he be released on his minimum parole eligibility date. We affirm because we find no merit to any of these claims.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Perroton was indicted in the Northern District of California on February 20, 1985, in a twenty-seven count indictment charging bank larceny, making false statements to banks in loan applications, and interstate transportation of monies taken by fraud. On April 8, 1985, the Government filed a three-count superseding information. Count one charged that Perroton committed bank larceny by obtaining $176,141 belonging to Crocker National Bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). Count two charged that Perroton transported $121,000 from Portland to San Francisco knowing that the money was taken by fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Count three charged that Perroton committed bank fraud by executing and attempting to execute a scheme to obtain approximately $20,000,000 from Hybernia Bank in San Francisco through fraudulent representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Perroton pled guilty to all three counts of the superseding information. He was sentenced to ten years on count one, ten years on count two to run consecutive to count one, and five years on count three to run concurrent with the sentence on count two, for a total of 20 years (240 months). Perroton began serving his sentence on July 22, 1985.

On December 12, 1986, Perroton appeared before a hearing panel of the United States Parole Commission. The panel determined that the parole guideline range applicable to Perroton was 52 to 64 months, but concluded that Perroton should serve 120 months because of the magnitude of his crime. The panel determined that Perroton should be given a presumptive parole release date of January 30, 1995. On January 8, 1987, the Parole Commission affirmed the hearing panel's recommendation. Perroton appealed to the National Appeals Board, which affirmed the Parole Commission's decision on May 15, 1987.

Perroton received an interim hearing before the Parole Commission in August 1991. The Commission rescinded the presumptive parole date of January 30, 1995 and continued the presumptive parole date until May 30, 1995. Perroton appealed to the National Appeals Board, and on April 8, 1992, the Board affirmed the Parole Commission's decision.

On December 4, 1990, Perroton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. Perroton argued (1) he was entitled to an immediate parole release date, (2) the Parole Commission was required to set his parole release date within the relevant parole guideline range, and (3) he was entitled to be sentenced in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines as promulgated under the Sentencing Reform Act. The district court rejected all three claims.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the district court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Adams v. Peterson, 968 F.2d 835, 843 (9th Cir. 1992). We review the Parole Commission's determination to render a parole decision outside the applicable guidelines range to determine if the Commission had good cause for making its decision. Wallace v. Christensen, 802 F.2d 1539, 1551 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Good cause requires a showing that the Commission's decision was not "arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, irrelevant or capricious." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

III.

THE PAROLE COMMISSION HAD GOOD CAUSE FOR EXTENDING PERROTON'S PAROLE DATE BEYOND THE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.