Simmons v. Casterline, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-31000
Summary Calendar
ERIC SIMMONS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL CASTERLINE; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-105
--------------------
January 28, 2003
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eric Simmons, federal prisoner # 36382-118, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In
that petition, he challenged the United States Parole
Commission’s (USPC) determination denying him reparole. He
argues that it is inappropriate for the USPC to apply the federal
regulations to determine a District of Columbia Code offender’s
suitability for reparole and, further, that the application of
the federal regulations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-31000
-2-
We review the district court’s determinations of law de novo
and its findings of fact for clear error. Venegas v. Henman, 126
F.3d 760, 761 (5th Cir. 1997). The USPC exercises authority over
District of Columbia Code offenders, having sole authority to
grant them parole, and the federal regulations constitute the
parole rules of the District of Columbia. 28 C.F.R. § 2.70(a).
Consequently, the USPC’s decision to grant or deny reparole is
made by reference to the reparole guidelines found in the Code of
Federal Regulations, and all reparole hearings are to be
conducted according to the procedures set forth therein. Id. at
§ 2.81(a), (d). Therefore, application of the federal
regulations to determine Simmons’s suitability for reparole was
correct. We reject Simmons’s argument that application of the
federal regulations changed his reparole hearing date and thus
increased the punishment attached to his crimes in violation of
the Ex Post Facto Clause. See California Dep’t of Corrections v.
Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 508-10 (1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --