Harvey Johnson v. Joseph Norwood ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARVEY RAY JOHNSON, No. 08-56330
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00824-MMM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSEPH NORWOOD, Warden; UNITED
STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Harvey Ray Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Johnson contends that the United States Parole Commission was bound by
the hearing examiner’s recommendation to re-release him on parole. The hearing
examiner, however, only has the authority to make recommendations to the
Commission. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.23; Solheim v. Armstrong, 859 F.2d 755, 758 (9th
Cir. 1988). The Commission’s decision to continue Johnson to his expiration date
was not “arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, irrelevant, or capricious.” Walker v.
United States, 816 F.2d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 1987).
Johnson also contends that the Commission improperly extended his
expiration date when it did not give him credit for time spent on parole and in state
custody. There is no rule “that accords a prisoner credit against a federal sentence
for time served in a state prison on a state charge.” Raines v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
829 F.2d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Moreover, the Commission did
not abuse its discretion by forfeiting the time Johnson spent under parole
supervision. See Meador v. Knowles, 990 F.2d 503, 506-07 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56330