Phillip Tucker, Petitioner-appellant, v. William Perrill, Warden, Fci, United States Parolecommission, Respondent-appellee, 892 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 892 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1989)

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.



The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3