Ronald W. Hancock v. Oregon State Board of Parole

62 F.3d 1424 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ronald W. HANCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 94-35926. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 12, 1995. Decided Aug. 1, 1995. As Amended Sept. 12, 1995. 1 Before: GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Petitioner, Ronald Hancock, argues that the Oregon State Board of Parole ("Board") violated his due process rights by vindictively imposing a more severe penalty following Hancock's successful appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which had ruled that the Board improperly considered an aggravating factor when calculating Hancock's parole release date. The district court denied Hancock's petition, and we affirm that decision. 4 Under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 (1969), the imposition of a more severe sentence after a successful appeal is presumptively a due process…