Keith Bryan Webb v. Warden Troy Williamson

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-2566
________________
KEITH BRYAN WEBB,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN TROY WILLIAMSON;
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION;
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES;
THOMAS MARINO
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00778)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 2, 2007
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 26, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Keith Webb appeals the District Court’s order denying his petition filed pursuant

-- 1 of 2 --

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The facts of Webb’s conviction, parole proceedings, and current
claims are well known to the parties and need not be addressed in detail. Briefly, in 1985,
Webb was sentenced to life in prison. In August 2005, the United States Parole
Commission refused to release Webb on parole. After unsuccessfully appealing that
decision to the National Appeals Board, Webb filed his § 2241 petition in the District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The District Court denied the petition, and
Webb filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s legal conclusions. Funari v. Warden, 218 F.3d 250, 254 (3d Cir. 2000).
We agree with the District Court that Webb’s claims are without merit. Webb argues that
the District Court did not address his claim that the application of parole guidelines
enacted after the commission of his crime violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Even if
Webb could show that the parole guidelines should be considered laws, see United States
ex rel. Forman v. McCall, 776 F.2d 1156, 1163 (3d Cir. 1985), he has not shown a
significant risk of an increase in punishment. See Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 255
(2000).
For essentially the reasons given by the District Court, we will affirm the District
Court’s judgment. Webb has filed a motion seeking to seal this opinion. Because we
have not gone into the details of Webb’s crime, we will deny his motion. Any concerns
Webb has for his safety should be directed to the appropriate prison officials.
2

-- 2 of 2 --