Elaster v. USPC

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 19, 2002·No. 01-60500·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60500 Summary Calendar

KENNETH IVEY ELASTER,

Petitioner,

versus

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Parole Commission (18 USC 4106A) - - - - - - - - - - March 18, 2002

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Ivey Elaster, a federal prisoner transferred to the

United States pursuant to the Treaty on the Execution of Penal

Sentences (Treaty), November 25, 1976, United States--Mexico, 20

U.S.T. 7399; T.I.A.S. No. 8718, appeals from the United States

Parole Commission’s determination of his release date. Elaster

argues that he was denied due process because the Parole

Commission relied on inaccurate information in determining his

sentence and did not afford him a hearing. He also contends that

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 01-60500 -2-

he should have received a downward departure under U.S.S.G.

§§ 5K2.10 and 5K2.12.

Elaster is essentially seeking to challenge the facts as

found by the Mexican court of conviction. According to the terms

of the transfer treaty, he is prohibited from doing so. See

Treaty Art. II(6) and Art. VI; 18 U.S.C. § 4108(b)(1). Elaster’s

assertion that he is entitled to downward departures under the

sentencing guidelines also lacks merit. See Navarette v. United

States Parole Comm’n, 34 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Elaster v. USPC, (5th Cir. 2002).

Elaster v. USPC (Elaster v. USPC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Navarrete v. United States Parole Commission
34 F.3d 316 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)