Phillip Tucker, Petitioner-appellant, v. William Perrill, Warden, Fci, United States Parolecommission, Respondent-appellee, 892 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
Submitted July 25, 1989. *Decided Dec. 14, 1989
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Tucker appeals dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. He argues that application of the United States Parole Commission guidelines, that were not in effect at the time appellant committed various institutional rule infractions, to adjust his parole date violated the ex facto clause, U.S. Const. art. I, Section 9, cl. 3. Guidelines of the United States Parole Commission are merely procedural guideposts, and thus are not laws within the meaning of the ex post facto clause. Rifai v. United States Parole Comm'n, 586 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1978). The petition was properly dismissed.