Full text
Webber v. Dept of Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10228 Summary Calendar
PRINCE S. J. WEBBER,
Petitioner-Appellant, versus
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION; U. S. PAROLE COMMISSION; NFN WARDEN; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondents-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CV-22-C -------------------- November 8, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Prince S. J. Webber, federal prisoner # 04349-000, (“Webber”), appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Webber’s petition challenged his parole proceedings and the denial of parole on due process and other constitutional grounds. Webber contends that the district court erred in denying relief and erred in denying a discovery request. Webber moves for the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-10228 -2-
appointment of counsel on appeal, but the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel and therefore the motion is DENIED. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985).
The parole record establishes that the decision of the U.S. Parole Commission was supported by some evidence and that Webber received all process due in connection with the parole proceedings. See Simpson v. Ortiz, 995 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1993); Kindred v. Spears, 894 F.2d 1477, 1479 (5th Cir. 1990). The parole conditions of which Webber complains are reasonably related to the purpose of parole. See United States v. Tonry, 605 F.2d 144, 150 (5th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Webber’s discovery request. Moore v. Willis Indep. School Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.