United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge.
matter now is before the court on respondents' motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (DE 19). The issues raised
have been fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication.
5, 1989, petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia on various drug offenses and
sentenced to 15 yeas in prison. (Resp't. Ex. A (DE 20-1)
at 4, 7, 13). Petitioner was paroled in 1994, and his parole
has since been revoked a total of eight times. (Id.
at 13-20). In 2013, the United States Parole Commission
(“Commission”) revoked petitioner's parole
after he was convicted of two drug distribution charges in
Virginia state court. (Id. at 18-20). After he
completed his sentence in Virginia, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia revoked
petitioner's supervised release term and ordered the
service of 20 months. (Id., at 3). He completed the
service of this time on April 29, 2013 (Id.).
a revocation hearing, on December 3, 2013, the Commission
took the following action:
Revoke parole. None of the time spent on parole shall be
credited. Continue to expiration.
You shall be subject to the Special Drug Aftercare Condition
that requires you participate [sic], as instructed by your
Supervision Officer, in an approved inpatient or outpatient
program for the treatment of narcotic addiction or drug
dependency. The treatment program may include testing and
examination to determine if you have reverted to the use of
drugs. You shall abstain from the use of alcohol and all
other intoxicants during and after the course of treatment.
If so instructed by a Bureau of Prisons institutional
employee or your Supervision Officer, you shall reside in,
and participate in a program of, the Re-Entry and Sanctions
Center until discharged by the Center Director.
In addition, you shall be subject to the Special Mental
Health Aftercare Condition that requires you participate
[sic] in an in-patient or an out-patient mental health
program as directed by your Supervision Officer.
(Id.) at 18.
Petitioner appealed this decision to the National Appeals
Board (“NAB”), which affirmed the
Commission's decision. (Id. at 23).
Specifically, the NAB determined:
The grounds for your appeal are that you have not been given
correct credit towards the expiration of your sentence for
the time that you spent in custody, that you did not receive
proper notice of the parole violations and evidence to be
considered for revocation, that your parole revocation
hearing was untimely, and that there are mitigating
circumstances that warrant a more lenient decision.
The National Appeals Board has reviewed your claims and has
found no merit to the claims that would justify a different
decision. If you believe that your sentence has been computed
incorrectly, you should address that with the Bureau of
All decisions by the National Appeals Board on appeal are