United States Ninth Circuit

In habeas proceedings challenging the denial of petitioner's parole, following his conviction for using a minor in the production of pornography, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the revocation of petitioner's parole in 2002 was not the type of criminal punishment that would trigger the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) to the extent petitioner asserted that the parole board's violation or misapplication of Nevada law violated his federal due process rights, petitioner had no liberty interest in parole; and 3) it is not an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent to conclude that subjecting petitioner to a review panel certification process would not create a substantial risk that he would serve more prison time than if he had been evaluated for parole under standards applicable at the time of his conviction, as found in Nev. Rev. Stat. section 213.1099.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/15/2010
• Decided 04/29/2010
• Published 04/29/2010

Judges

• Before J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, PROCTER HUG, JR., and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Ryan Norwood, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, NV, for petitioner-appellant Mark Moor.


• For Appellees:
  
• Heather D. Proctor, Esq., Carson City, NV, for respondents-appellees Jack Palmer, et al.