Perroton

MEMORANDUM **

Jon Robert Perroton, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . He contends that the United States Parole Commission violated *905 his right to due process and former 18 U.S.C. § 4211 by failing to terminate parole supervision in September 2001. Perroton contends that he therefore is entitled either to immediate release from custody and termination of parole or to a new hearing at which the Commission would consider only information known to it in September 2001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The federal courts have authority to review whether the Parole Commission acted unconstitutionally or outside its statutory authority. Benny v. United States Parole Comm’n, 295 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir.2002). The Commission is required to hold a termination hearing five years after a prisoner’s release from custody. 18 U.S.C. § 4211 (c)(1); Benny, 295 F.3d at 982-85 . The remedy for the “procedural violation” of failing to provide such a hearing normally is a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to provide a hearing. Benny, 295…