Pinkerton

MEMORANDUM

James L. Pinkerton appeals the district court’s denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review a decision of the United States Parole Commission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a section 2241 petition. See United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997). “The scope of judicial review of the [U.S. Parole] Commission’s parole decision ... is exceedingly narrow. Judgments involving a broad range of factors that the Commission takes into account in arriving at its decision are committed to the Commission’s discretion and are unreviewable even for abuse of discretion. If ‘the Commission’s decision involves the exercise of judgment among a range of possible choices or options,’ it is unreviewable.” Walker v. United States, 816 F.2d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Wallace v. Christensen, 802 F.2d 1539, 1551 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc)). The Court, however, has jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges. See Wallace, 802 F.2d at 1552 .

Pinkerton first raises a due process argument that the parole board’s stated reasons for denying parole were insufficient. Pinkerton relies…