Harrison

*41 MEMORANDUM **

Clyde Harrison, a federal prisoner, appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing his action after denying his petition for habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . Harrison challenges a decision of the United States Parole Commission rescinding his parole date and establishing a new presumptive parole date outside the range established by parole rescission guidelines. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

The Parole Commission’s decision to depart from the rescission guidelines based on Harrison’s “history of assaultive behavior” was supported by good cause. 2 See Walker v. United States, 816 F.2d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (stating that, if the Commission issues a decision outside the guidelines, “a court may consider whether the Commission failed to show ‘good cause’ for doing so, but may only inquire whether that showing was arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, irrelevant, or capricious”) (quoting Wallace v. Christensen, 802 F.2d 1539, 1551 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc)). The Commission did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, unreasonably, irrelevantly, or capriciously in making its…

concurring.

I join the majority decision, but I write separately to clarify the record. Harrison did not raise the issue of assaultive behavior in his habeas petition, but we may *42 nonetheless review it under United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir.1998). Harrison did not raise the double-counting issue to the National Appeals Board. The Commission had an opportunity to object in the district court on exhaustion grounds, but failed to. The exhaustion argument is thus waived.