United States District Court, District of Columbia
S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Ronald Smoot's petition for
a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, the respondent's
opposition to the petition, ECF No. 6, and its response to
the Court's September 2, 2016 minute order, ECF No. 13.
For the reasons discussed below, the petition will be DENIED.
petitioner's plea of guilty to one count of manslaughter,
on June 26, 1996, the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia imposed a sentence of five to 30 years'
imprisonment. See Pet. at 2 (page numbers designated
by ECF); Govt Opp to Petr's Pro Se Pet. for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Govt Opp”) at 1; see
id., Ex. 9 (Judgment and Commitment Order, United
States v. Smoot, No. F556-96C (D.C. Super. Ct. June 26,
1996)). Since the petitioner's first parole release on
December 8, 2006, parole has been granted and revoked several
times. See generally Govt Opp, Ex. 1 (Sentence
Monitoring Computation Data) at 1-10. As of April 9, 2015,
the date of the petitioner's last parole release, he was
to remain under supervision until December 2, 2028.
Id., Ex. 1 at 2.
few weeks after the petitioner's release, on June 18,
2015, he was arrested in the District of Columbia and charged
with attempted robbery. See generally id., Ex. 10
(Docket sheet, United States v. Smoot, No. 2015 CF3
008268 (D.C. Super. Ct. filed June 18, 2015)). On July 21,
2015, the petitioner was indicted on one charge of attempt to
commit robbery. Id., Ex. 10 at 6. He was detained
pending trial, see id., Ex. 10 at 2-4, and each of
two trials resulted in a hung jury, see id., Ex. 10
at 2-3. The government amended its criminal complaint on
November 23, 2015, charging the petitioner with assault and
attempted second-degree theft. See id., Ex. 10 at 2.
Before these proceedings concluded, the petitioner filed the
instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See
generally Pet. at 1, 6.
petitioner waived his right to trial on the new charges and
opted instead to plead guilty to one count of simple assault.
See Govt Opp, Ex. 11 (Plea Agreement and Waiver of
Trial). On February 24, 2016, the Superior Court imposed a
sentence of 180 days' incarceration, execution of the
sentence suspended as to all but time served, and supervised
probation for six months. Id., Ex. 5 (Judgment,
United States v. Smoot, No. 2015 CF3 008268 (D.C.
Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2016)).
on June 19, 2015, the United States Parole Commission
(“Commission”) charged the petitioner with
violations of five conditions of his parole release,
including his failure to obey all laws as evidenced by his
arrest on June 18, 2015. Id., Ex. 2 (Alleged
Violation(s) Report dated June 19, 2015) at 2. Subsequently,
on July 30, 2015, the Commission issued a violator warrant.
See generally id., Exs. 3-4 (respectively, Warrant
Application and Warrant). The warrant was executed and the
petitioner was arrested on March 7, 2016. Id., Ex. 4
(Warrant) at 2. The Commission supplemented its warrant on
April 6, 2016 to reflect the petitioner's simple assault
conviction. Id., Ex. 7 (Supplement).
days later, on March 11, 2016, the Commission conducted a
probable cause hearing at which the petitioner was
represented by counsel. See id., Ex. 6 (D.C.
Probable Cause Hearing Digest) at 1. Upon the
Commission's finding of probable cause, the petitioner
remained in custody pending a parole revocation hearing,
id., Ex. 6 at 5, which had been scheduled for the
week of May 9, 2016 at the Federal Detention Center in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, id., Ex. 12 (U.S.P.C.
Commission proposed, and the petitioner accepted, expedited
revocation of parole. See Resp't's Second
Supplement to Resp. to Court's Order to Show Cause Why
Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not Issue at 2. When the
petitioner accepted the Commission's proposal, he not
only accepted responsibility for his conduct but also waived
his right to a revocation hearing. Id., Ex. A
(Response to Expedited Revocation Proposal). Accordingly, the
Commission revoked parole and set a reparole date of October
15, 2016. Id., Ex. B (Notice of Action dated May 13,
to the petitioner, the respondent violated his right to due
process by failing to execute the Commission's warrant
and to conduct a parole revocation hearing within the
requisite time limits. See Pet. at 5. He learned of
the Commission's warrant on December 16, 2015, and
claimed to have been in custody for more than 70 days without
a hearing. See id. Further, the petitioner contends
that the respondent's failure either to lodge the
Commission's warrant as a detainer or to execute the
warrant immediately upon issuance “hindered his
stradegy [sic] for case no. 2015CF38268.” Pet. Resp. to
the |Resp't's Opp'n to Pet'r's [TC1]Pro
Se Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 11
(“Pet'r's Resp.”) at 2 (page numbers
designated by ECF). Relevant to this case are Commission
regulations which set deadlines for probable cause and
revocation hearings. A probable cause hearing must occur
within five days of the execution of its warrant:
A parolee who is retaken and held in custody in the District
of Columbia on a warrant issued by the Commission, and who
has not been convicted of a new crime, shall be given a
probable cause hearing by an examiner of the Commission no
later than five days from the date of such retaking.
28 C.F.R. § 2.101(a). Upon the determination that
“there is probable cause to believe that the parolee
has violated parole as charged, ” id.,
“an institutional revocation hearing shall be scheduled
for a date that is within ninety days of the parolee's
retaking, ” id. § 2.101(e). When the
petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
February 2016, he was in custody by order of the Superior
Court pending resolution of Case No. 2015 CF3 008268. Not
until the Commission executed its warrant on March 7, 2016
was the petitioner in custody under the Commission's
authority. In other words, the clock began to run on March 7,
record reflects that the petitioner's probable cause
hearing occurred on March 11, 2016, within five days of his
retaking. Due to the petitioner's transfer to FDC
Philadelphia, the Commission scheduled an institutional
revocation hearing for the week of May 9, 2016, within 90
days of his retaking. The proposed hearing date is
irrelevant, however, ...