Robert E. Miller v. John Gluch, Warden, Ben Baer, United States Parole Comm'n, 909 F.2d 1483 (6th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert E. Miller v. John Gluch, Warden, Ben Baer, United States Parole Comm'n, 909 F.2d 1483 (6th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shelton W. McNeal v. Shelby County Sheriff (ca6, 1993-04-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Shelton W. McNeal v. Shelby County Sheriff
6th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See McDowell v. Rogers, 863 F.2d 1302, 1306-1307 (6th Cir.1988), aff'd, 909 F.2d 1483 (1990); Lewis v. Downs, 774 F.2d 711, 713 (6th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" Federal Express Corporation v. Tennessee Public Service Commission
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See 909 F.2d 1483 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert E. Miller
v.
John Gluch, Warden, Ben Baer, United States Parole Commission
89-1910.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Aug 2, 1990.
909 F.2d 1483
Unpublished

909 F.2d 1483

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Robert E. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
John GLUCH, Warden, Ben Baer, United States Parole
Commission, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 89-1910.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1990.

1

Before KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and HERMAN J. WEBER, District Judge.[*]

ORDER

2

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

This federal prisoner appeals from the district court's order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241.

4

Miller alleged that the United States Parole Commission violated his rights to due process and equal protection by erroneously "triple counting" his first conviction at his parole hearing. He claims that this produced a parole decision above the applicable guidelines and has resulted in a term of imprisonment beyond the maximum provided for in the statute defining his first offense.

5

After a review of the record, the district court denied the petition, finding that the Commission did not commit an abuse of discretion in determining Miller's presumptive parole date. Miller has filed a timely appeal challenging the denial of habeas relief.

6

Upon review, we affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion and order. The district court correctly determined that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining Miller's presumptive parole date. Myers v. United States Parole Comm'n, 813 F.2d 957, 959 (9th Cir.1987); Farkas v. United States, 744 F.2d 37, 38-39 (6th Cir.1984).

7

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Herman J. Weber, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation