Anderson v. Daniels ( 2022 )

Case: 21-40767 Document: 00516461784 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 7, 2022
No. 21-40767
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Melvin Anderson,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Charles Daniels, Warden, USP Beaumont,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-530
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Melvin Anderson, federal prisoner # 82106-020, appeals the dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge the decision
of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) to deny him parole. He
argues that the USPC did not issue a notice of action denying him parole and
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40767 Document: 00516461784 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2022
No. 21-40767
that the document in the record purporting to be a notice of action, dated
June 12, 2019, is a fabrication. He also argues that he has satisfied the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d) and that his prison disciplinary record
is exaggerated and provided no grounds for denying him parole. He also
moves this court for appointment of counsel and for leave to file exhibits to
his reply brief as a supplemental brief.
“In an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, this court reviews a
district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo.”
Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). The USPC has broad
discretion in making parole determinations, and this court’s review of a
parole decision is “quite circumscribed.” Van Etten v. United States Parole
Comm’n, 96 F.3d 145, 145 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, this court reviews
the decision only to determine whether there is some evidence in the record
to support the USPC’s decision.” Simpson v. Ortiz, 995 F.2d 606, 608 (5th
Cir. 1993); see Van Etten, 96 F.3d at 145.
Anderson’s unsupported assertion that the notice of action contained
in that file is fraudulent and that the Respondent failed to produce a certified
copy of the document is belied by the record and is insufficient to show error
in the district court’s findings. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. Furthermore,
there is evidence in the record to support the decision to deny Anderson
parole. See Simpson, 995 F.2d at 608; Van Etten, 96 F.3d at 145. Therefore,
Anderson has not shown any error in the district court’s decision to dismiss
his § 2241 petition on the motion of the Respondent.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Anderson has not made the
showing for appointment of counsel. See Wardlaw v. Cain, 541 F.3d 275, 279
(5th Cir. 2008). Further, his motion to file a supplemental brief is
unnecessary because the documents are part of the record.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
2