Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Luchai Ruviwat, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for federal habeas relief. Ruviwat contends that the United States Parole Commission (1) violated the ex post facto prohibition and due process by applying statutory parole standards enacted after his conviction, (2) violated due process by failing to make findings of fact as to the reliability of certain information, and (3) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by continuing his confinement until the expiration of his sentence. We affirm.

The parole release standards enacted in 1976 did not change the law governing parole release decisions and, therefore, the application of the 1976 statutory standards to Ruviwat's pre-1976 conviction did not violate the ex post facto prohibition. See Rifai v. United States Parole Commission, 586 F.2d 695, 698-99 (9th Cir. 1978). Therefore, application of the 1976 statutory standards did not deny him due process.

The Commission is not required to make findings of fact regarding the reliability of each item of information presented to it, and this court does not have jurisdiction to review the relevance or reliability of information properly before the Commission. See Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Commission did not violate due process by denying parole even though Ruviwat may have been eligible for parole and may have satisfied one of the criteria for release. See 18 U.S.C. § 4206(a) (recognizing that the Commission must make additional determinations before ordering the release of a prisoner); Walker v. United States, 816 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir. 1987); Page v. United States Parole Commission, 651 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir. 1981) (18 U.S.C. § 4205(a).

Therefore, Ruviwat fails to make a reviewable due process claim regarding the denial of his parole under 18 U.S.C. § 4206(a)).

AFFIRMED.