NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL LEE MELLINGER, No. 15-17222
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00129-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNKNOWN GRABER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Daniel Lee Mellinger appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section
2241 petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affirm.
Mellinger contends that the decision of the United States Parole Commission
(“Commission”) revoking his parole unlawfully extended his original sentence.
Judicial review of the Commission’s discretionary decisions is limited to
determining whether the Commission’s action lacked good cause or was so
arbitrary as to violate due process. See Walker v. United States, 816 F.2d 1313,
1316 (9th Cir. 1987). Thompson v. Crabtree, 82 F.3d 312 (9th Cir. 1996), upon
which Mellinger relies, is factually distinguishable and does not support
Mellinger’s argument that he is entitled to credit for time served on his 2000
conviction. The Commission retains the discretion to determine whether to grant
parole release and whether to grant credit towards a parolee’s unexpired sentence
for terms of imprisonment imposed for offenses committed subsequent to parole
release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4206(c), 4210(b)(2). In light of Mellinger’s lengthy and
violent criminal history and unacceptable risk to public safety, the Commission’s
determination that good cause existed to deny reparole and deny Mellinger credit
for time served on an unrelated sentence was not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable,
irrelevant, capricious, or unconstitutional. See Walker, 816 F.2d at 1316.
Mellinger’s motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal Number 15-
2 15-17222
16984 is denied because that appeal has been dismissed.
Mellinger’s motion for expedited resolution is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17222