Jamison v. USAF Clemency/Parole ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 19 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT L. JAMISON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-3021
(D.C. No. 97-CV-3493)
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (D. Kan.)
CLEMENCY & PAROLE BOARD;
MARVIN L. NICKELS, Commandant,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Robert L. Jamison, a military prisoner appearing pro se, appeals
from the denial of his petition for habeas relief filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He
argues that the 1988 Department of Defense Directive 1325.4, as applied to him,
violates the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the United States
Constitution. He maintains that the 1968 version of the same directive should
apply to him. The district court determined that the 1988 directive was no more
onerous than the 1968 version and that its retrospective application was not an ex
post facto violation. See R. doc. 23; see also Jefferson v. Hart , No. 91-3232-
RDR, 1993 WL 302137, at *4 (D. Kan. July 29, 1993), aff’d , 84 F.3d 1314 (10th
Cir. 1996).
We review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief under § 2241.
See Patterson v. Knowles , 162 F.3d 574, 575 (10th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed
petitioner’s brief, the district court’s order, and the record on appeal. We find no
error and AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the
district court’s November 30, 1999 order.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-2-