Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • David Bradshaw v. William Perrill, Warden, 30 F.3d 141, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The petitioner, William Bradshaw, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, claimed that the U.S. Parole Commission made incorrect factual findings in denying him parole, including finding that he had sexually assaulted a boy. Bradshaw also argued that the Parole Commission improperly double-counted information to determine his offense severity index under the parole guidelines and in exceeding the guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Bradshaw's petition for the reasons provided in the magistrate's recommendation.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-07-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 30 F.3d 141 Docket: 94-1021

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner, William Bradshaw, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, claimed that the U.S. Parole Commission made incorrect factual findings in denying him parole, including finding that he had sexually assaulted a boy. Bradshaw also argued that the Parole Commission improperly double-counted information to determine his offense severity index under the parole guidelines and in exceeding the guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Bradshaw's petition for the reasons provided in the magistrate's recommendation.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    David Bradshaw v. William Perrill, Warden, 30 F.3d 141, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, William Bradshaw, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, claimed that the U.S. Parole Commission made incorrect factual findings in denying him parole, including finding that he had sexually assaulted a boy. Bradshaw also argued that the Parole Commission improperly double-counted information to determine his offense severity index under the parole guidelines and in exceeding the guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Bradshaw's petition for the reasons provided in the magistrate's recommendation.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    30 F.

    3d 141
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    David BRADSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant,


    v.
    William PERRILL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 94-1021.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    July 13, 1994.

    Before TACHA, BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case
    is ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Petitioner-Appellant William Bradshaw ("Bradshaw") appeals from the district


    court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241.
    Bradshaw, a federal prisoner, was denied parole by the United States Parole
    Commission, and sought a writ of habeas corpus because of alleged errors by
    the Commission. On appeal, Bradshaw claims that: 1) the Parole Commission
    made incorrect factual findings, including a finding that Bradshaw had sexually
    assaulted a boy; and 2) the Parole Commission improperly double-counted
    certain information to establish the offense severity index in the parole
    guidelines and then to exceed the guidelines.

    After a review of the record and the briefs, we AFFIRM for the reasons set out

    in the magistrate's recommendation.2

    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 the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    Bradshaw complains that the district court erred in ignoring his petition for a
    writ of mandamus. However, there was no request for a writ of mandamus in
    the original petition

    You might also like