David Bradshaw, Petitioner-appellant, v. William Perrill, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 30 F.3d 141 (10th Cir. 1994)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

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. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner-Appellant William Bradshaw ("Bradshaw") appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, was denied parole by the United States Parole Commission, and sought a writ of habeas corpus because of alleged errors by the Commission. On appeal, Bradshaw claims that: 1) the Parole Commission made incorrect factual findings, including a finding that Bradshaw had sexually assaulted a boy; and 2) the Parole Commission improperly double-counted certain information to establish the offense severity index in the parole guidelines and then to exceed the guidelines.

After a review of the record and the briefs, we AFFIRM for the reasons set out in the magistrate's recommendation.²