Richard Plummer v. J. Willis, Warden ( 2018 )

Case: 17-50931 Document: 00514608990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-50931 FILED
Summary Calendar August 21, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
RICHARD L. PLUMMER,
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
J. SCOTT WILLIS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna,
Respondent - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CV-289
Before ELROD, GRAVES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard L. Plummer, now federal prisoner # 00648-000, was given a
Navy general court martial in 1985 and was convicted of murder and other
charges. He was sentenced to life in prison. The United States Parole
Commission (Commission) ordered that Plummer was to be scheduled for a
mandatory parole hearing in 2015. Following the hearing, the Commission
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 17-50931 Document: 00514608990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-50931
denied mandatory parole and ordered Plummer to continue to expiration. The
Commission found that there was a reasonable probability that Plummer
would commit another crime if released. The finding was based on Plummer’s
combative and angry attitude and his lack of respect for the parole process
during the parole hearing. The Commission concluded that Plummer was not
likely to comply with the conditions of parole and was likely to engage in
criminal behavior. Plummer filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing
that there was no credible evidence that he was likely to commit another crime.
The district court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the § 2241
petition.
In considering a federal habeas corpus petition, we review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error and review any issues of law de novo.
Vengas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 761 (5th Cir. 1997). “[T]he Parole
Commission has absolute discretion concerning matters of parole and may use
all relevant, available information in making parole determinations.” Simpson
v. Ortiz, 995 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Contrary to Plummer’s unsupported assertions, the report
of the hearing examiner is relevant evidence of his conduct at the parole
hearing. Because there is some evidence in the record to support the
Commission’s decision, the district court did not err in dismissing Plummer’s
§ 2241 petition. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See
Vengas, 126 F.3d at 761.
2