Kaiser v. Young

BEFORE: LIVELY, Chief Judge; JONES, Circuit Judge; and BERTELSMAN, District Judge* Order The petitioner appeals from the district court's order and judgment of August 15, 1983, denying his petition for habeas corpus, and moves for appointment of counsel on appeal. This case has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 9(a). Upon examination of the record and petitioner's brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner challenges the decision of the United States Parole Commission denying petitioner release on parole. Parole determinations are within the discretion of the Parole Commission, United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 188 (1979), and will not be disturbed by a federal court unless the Commission has committed flagrant, unwarranted or unauthorized action or violated required due process protections. Adams v. Keller, 713 F.2d 1195 (6th Cir.), reh. en banc granted (September 23, 1983); Solomon v. Elsea, 676 F.2d 282 (7th Cir. 1982); Stroud v. United States Parole Commission, 668 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1982). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Parole Commission abused its discretion, acted outside of its authority or violated due process protections in its decisions denying petitioner release on parole.