Norman Reed, Petitioner--appellant, v. O.c. Jenkins, Warden and United States Parole Commission,respondents--appellees, 61 F.3d 916 (10th Cir. 1995)

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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Norman Reed filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. He alleges that the action of the Parole Commission, in directing that his sentences run consecutively instead of concurrently following the violation of his parole, was unlawful.²  The district court denied his petition.

We review the Parole Commission's actions deferentially. We will disturb its judgment only if it has abused its discretion. Miller v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 989 F.2d 420, 422 (10th Cir. 1993). In this case, petitioner contends that the Parole Commission exceeded its statutory mandate when it enacted 28 C.F.R. 2.47(e) (2). We also review the Commission's interpretation of its statutory directive deferentially, rejecting its interpretation only when the contrary intent of Congress is clear or the Commission's determination is unreasonable. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).

We have reviewed the statutes and regulations in this case and have determined that the Commission promulgated section 2.47(e) (2) properly. See McConnell v. Martin, 896 F.2d 441, 442 (10th Cir.) ("The Commission's subsequent decision to revoke [the defendant's] parole and order the first sentence run consecutive to release from the second sentence was proper."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 861 (1990). Accordingly, petitioner's sentence is appropriate, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.