eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 1996-12

Gade v. United States Parole ( 1996 )


Menu:
 
  •                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 12/13/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
MARK WINSLOW GADE,
Petitioner - Appellant,                     No. 96-1341
v.                                                 D. Colorado
UNITED STATES PAROLE                                    (D.C. No. 96-K-358)
COMMISSION; and JOE W. BOOKER,
Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mark Winslow Gade appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    . Gade argues that: (1) under
the original version of § 235(b)(3)1 of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No.
98-473, § 235(b)(3),
    98 Stat. 2032
     (1984) (codified as amended at
    18 U.S.C. § 3551
    (1985 & Supp. 1996)), and its original regulatory interpretation at 28 C.F.R. 2.64 (1987),
the Parole Commission is required to set Gade’s release date within the guidelines of
sixty to seventy-two months and because he has already served in excess of seventy-two
months he is entitled to immediate release; (2) the amended versions of § 253(b)(3) and
28 C.F.R. 2.64, which expressly allow the Parole Commission to set release dates outside
the guidelines, are ex post facto laws; and (3) in any event, the Parole Commission was
required to release him in February, 1994, because he had then served eighty months, a
third of his twenty-year sentence. The magistrate judge concluded that Gade’s arguments
have no merit and recommended that the district court dismiss the petition. The district
court adopted the magistrate’s opinion and denied the petition.
Gade’s renewed arguments on appeal are simply variations on a theme that courts
have been hearing from federal prisoners since the enactment of the original version of
§ 253(b)(3). This court and at least seven other circuits have rejected same or similar
arguments. See, e.g., Lewis v. Martin,
    880 F.2d 288
     (10th Cir. 1989); Piekarski v. Bogan,
1
The text of the original § 253(b)(3) can be found at
    18 U.S.C. § 3551
     note
(1985).
-2-
    912 F.2d 224
     (8th Cir. 1990); Skowronek v. Brennan,
    896 F.2d 264
     (7th Cir. 1990);
Valladares v. Keohane,
    871 F.2d 1560
     (11th Cir. 1989); Tripati v. United States Parole
Comm’n,
    872 F.2d 328
     (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Keohane,
    877 F.2d 1167
     (3d Cir.
1989); Lightsey v. Kastner,
    846 F.2d 329
     (5th Cir. 1988); Romano v. Luther,
    816 F.2d 832
     (2d Cir. 1987). In view of the settled law on this subject, Gade’s contentions are
frivolous. The district court’s order denying Gade’s petition is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-