(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 92-5005
Summary Calendar
SALVATORE SALAMONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
KEITH E. HALL,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
92 CV 0221
March 19, 1993
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
BACKGROUND
Salvatore Salamone was convicted in the "Pizza Connection"
case in the southern district of New York. See United States v.
Badalamenti, Crim. No. 84-236 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). He was found guilty
of conspiracy to violate federal currency laws, filing false

-- 1 of 6 --

2
statements, and failure to file currency reports. Salamone was
sentenced to five years on each count--to run concurrently. The
jury returned a special verdict that Salamone did not commit these
crimes in violation of federal controlled substances laws.
Salamone was also convicted of possession of an illegally made
firearm, possession of an unregistered firearm, conspiracy to
falsify firearms transaction records, and falsification of firearms
transaction records in the middle district of Pennsylvania. He was
sentenced to 16 years imprisonment--to run consecutively to the
five-year sentence from the "Pizza Connection" case.
Salamone's initial parole hearing was held on 17 November
1990. The panel rendered a split decision regarding the extent of
departure but was in agreement that a departure from the parole
guidelines was warranted.
On 12 February 1991, the Parole Commission issued a Notice of
Action which stated that Salamone's offense behavior had been rated
at category six and his salient factor score was ten. In
accordance with the guidelines established by the Commission,
Salamone was to serve between 40 to 52 months imprisonment before
release. Nevertheless, after review of "all relevant factors and
information presented," the Commission opted to depart upwardly
because of: (1) "the amount of money involved in the money
laundering conspiracy was in excess of 30 times the threshold
amount for Category Six severity rating"; (2) the multiple firearms
illegally purchased for persons "later convicted of a drug
conspiracy operating from 1979 through 1984 generating at least $60

-- 2 of 6 --

3
million in drug revenue"; and (3) Salamone's "integral role in the
perpetuation of criminal activity which negatively effects [sic]
the financial and moral fabric of the nation." Salamone was
ordered to serve out his 21-year sentence to expiration.
Salamone appealed the decision to the National Appeals Board.
On 3 June 1991, the Appeals Board affirmed the decision of the
Commission. The Appeals Board found that Salamone had suffered no
prejudice as a result of not receiving the updated Form USA-792.
The Board also found that Salamone's offense category was correctly
calculated at six. The Board stated:
[Y]ou were shown, by the evidence at your trial, to be an
integral player in a Mafia enterprises, money laundering
operation between the U.S. and Europe. You were involved
in the total conspiracy of well over one million dollars
although we acknowledge that you seem to have had direct
control of only $290.000 [sic: intended $290,000]. It is
found that with your degree of involvement in the various
activities representing your conviction, that it is
reasonable to believe you forsaw [sic] the scope of money
laundering to be well in excess of $ 1 million.
The magistrate judge found that there was "some evidence" to
support the Commission's decision. The district court adopted the
findings of the magistrate judge and determined that Salamone was
not a victim of an ex post facto exercise of amended guideline 28
C.F.R. § 2.19(c). Salamone filed a timely notice of appeal.
OPINION
Salamone contends the district court erred by: (1) applying
the amended version of 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(c) and (2) by affirming the
Commission's determination that Salamone could reasonably foresee
the $1 million in illegal currency transactions. His contentions
are unavailing.

-- 3 of 6 --

4
"[T]he prohibition of ex post facto laws does not extend to
every change of law that may work to the disadvantage of a
defendant.'" Portley v. Grossman, 444 U.S. 1311, 1312, 100 S. Ct.
714, 62 L. Ed. 2d 723 (Rhenquist, Circuit Justice 1980), quoting
Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293, 97 S. Ct. 2290, 53 L. Ed. 2d
344 (1977). Because the change in 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(c) "neither
deprive[d] [Salamone] of any pre-existing right nor enhance[d] the
punishment imposed," there was no violation of the ex post facto
clause. Portley, 444 U.S. at 1312-1313. The retroactive
application of the Parole Commission Guidelines does not raise ex
post facto issues. Sheary v. U.S. Parole Com., 822 F.2d 556, 557
(5th Cir. 1987). It is also "most dubious that parole guidelines
are to be viewed as `laws.'" Salamone's ex post facto challenge
must fail.
In making parole release determinations, the Parole Commission
has very broad discretion. Ceniceros v. U.S. Parole Com., 837 F.2d
1358, 1361 (5th Cir. 1988). Its decisions "may be predicated on
facts gleaned from any number of sources." Id. In making parole
decisions, the Parole Commission may consider any "relevant,
available information in making parole determinations," including
"dismissed counts of an indictment, hearsay evidence, and
allegations of criminal activity for which the prisoner had not
even been charged." Maddox v. U.S. Parole Com., 821 F.2d 997, 999
(5th Cir. 1987) (footnotes omitted); 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(c).
The Parole Commission may take into account any substantial
information available to it in establishing the prisoner's offense-

-- 4 of 6 --

5
severity rating. Maddox, 821 F.2d at 999. Judicial review of the
Commission's decision is limited to whether there is "some
evidence" in the record to support the Commission's decision. Id.
at 1000. This Court cannot disturb a decision by the Commission
setting the time for parole release absent a showing that the
action is flagrant, unwarranted, or unauthorized. Ceniceros, 837
F.2d at 1361.
The Parole Commission, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4203(a)(1)
(repealed), has promulgated guidelines for the determination of
presumptive parole dates based on offense characteristics (based on
the severity of an offense) and offender characteristics (based on
the prisoner's salient-factor score). See 28 C.F.R. § 2.20. The
Commission may depart outside the range provided by its guidelines
to determine a presumptive parole date so long as good cause exists
and "the prisoner is furnished written notice stating with
particularity the reasons for [the Commission's] determination,
including a summary of the information relied upon." 18 U.S.C. §
4206(c) (repealed), cited in Maddox, 821 F.2d at 1000. "`"[G]ood
cause" means substantial reason and includes only those grounds put
forward by the Commission in good faith and which are not
arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, irrelevant or capricious.'"
Maddox, 821 F.2d at 1000 (citation omitted).
Salamone obtained a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, Louis J. Freeh, which stated that
"there was no direct evidence that Mr. Salamone had direct control
over any currency in excess of $290,000." Salamone argues that

-- 5 of 6 --

6
this letter contradicts the district court's finding that there was
"some evidence" to support the Commission's decision to upwardly
depart. He is incorrect.
The National Appeals Board responded to this assertion as
follows: "You were involved in the total conspiracy of well over
$1 million although we acknowledge that you seem to have had direct
control of $290.000 [sic: intended $290,000]." It is not the
function of this Court to review the Commission's discretion in a
parole denial or to review the credibility of reports the
Commission used in making its determination. Maddox, 821 F.2d at
999-1000. The letter from Attorney Freeh can be harmonized with
the Board's findings because, although there may not be direct
evidence of Salamone's knowledge of a conspiracy involving over $1
million, there was ample circumstantial evidence of Salamone's
knowledge of the conspiracy.
The decision of the district court is affirmed.

-- 6 of 6 --