Coleman v. Perrill (1988)

See Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Courts may not . . . review the relevance the Commission attributes to the information it considers.”).

We have previously held that although "similar treatment for co-defendants is among the [parole guidelines] Manual's aspirations, [it is] not among its requirements." Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988).

See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 789 , 101 S.Ct. 1468 , 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (per curiam) (holding that failure of government employee to follow 13 volume internal agency manual did not provide a basis of estoppel against the government); Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988) (internal U.S. Parole Commission manual provision was not a requirement, but merely a precato-ry aspiration); United States v. Fifty-Three (53) Eclectus Parrots, 685 F.2d 1131, 113…

See also Coleman, 845 F.2d at 879 (“Parole Commission not bound by [internal] regulations because they are merely precatory”).

In Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988), we suggested that an agency’s compliance with a nonbinding regulation is a jurisdictional question, which requires us to raise the validity of the Engineering Regulation sua sponte on appeal.

Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir.1988).

No. 94-838, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 19, 27 (1976) (what constitutes "good cause" covers many circumstances and includes such factors as whether the prisoner was involved in an offense of unusual planning or sophistication, has a lengthy criminal record, or was part of a large scale conspiracy or continuing criminal enterprise); Solheim v. Armstrong, 859 F.2d 755, 758 (9th Cir.1988) (parole date 42 months in excess of guideline range supported by good cause when defendant had hi…

We may review only whether the Commission "has acted outside its statutory authority or has violated the Constitution." Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir.1988).

Rizzo v. Armstrong, 921 F.2d 855, 858 (9th Cir.1990); Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir.1988). 6 The Commission's accepted interpretation of "new information" as used in section 2.28(f) is " 'information not considered by the Commission although it was in existence at the time of decision.' " Torres-Macias v. United States Parole Comm'n, 730 F.2d 1214, 1216 (9th Cir.1984) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION 12 This circuit has not ruled definitively on whether or not double-counting is permitted in the context of parole decisions. 2 See Coleman, 845 F.2d at 879 (noting split in Ninth Circuit regarding double-counting).

We also may review the Commission's actions to determine whether the Commission violated its own regulations, see Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1987), so long as the regulations at issue are binding and not merely precatory, Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988).

We may review “whether the Commission acted outside its statutory authority or has violated the Constitution.” Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir.1988).

The Court may only review “whether the Commission has acted outside its statutory authority or has violated the Constitution.” Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 878 (9th Cir.1988).

See Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988) (noting that we have stated in dicta that we will permit double-counting in some circumstances, but have suggested disapproval for it in others).

See Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988).

(Example 7) (emphasis added); see Sheary, 822 F.2d at 559 (noting Example 7 in case involving disparate sentences); see also Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir. 1988) (Commission was not bound by its own regulations concerning codefendant disparity because regulations were merely precatory and, therefore, failure to follow regulations was not reviewable by court of appeals).

See Coleman v. Perrill, 845 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1988) (noting split in Ninth Circuit regarding double-counting).