Charles Lee Smith v. United States Parole Commission

47 F.3d 1176 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles Lee SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-16512. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 15, 1995. * Decided Feb. 24, 1995. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles Lee Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 petition. Smith contends the district court erred when it denied his claims that: (1) the Parole Commission's decision to revoke his parole was based upon insufficient evidence; and (2) the Parole Commission violated his rights (a) to due process; (b) to confront the witnesses against him; and (c) against double jeopardy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 , and we affirm. 3 Although we review de novo, the scope of our review is narrow; so long as the decision is committed to the discretion of the Parole…