Rahim v. U.S. Parole Commission, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1344

Rahim was sentenced in D.C. Superior Court in 2008 for attempted distribution of cocaine (30 months + 5 years supervised release) and for firearms offenses (14 months + 2 years supervised release); he began supervised release April 2, 2010.
Parole Commission issued a warrant March 6, 2014, charging failures to report and to submit to drug testing; Rahim arrested March 28, 2014.
Rahim applied for the Parole Commission’s Short Intervention for Success (SIS) program, admitting violations and waiving a revocation hearing and administrative appeal rights in exchange for an agreed cap on incarceration (≤8 months) and a new supervised-release term.
The Commission approved SIS; it imposed 3 months’ imprisonment and a 57-month supervised-release term; Rahim filed a pro se habeas petition on June 23, 2014 and was released to supervision before decision.
Rahim raised two groups of challenges: (1) procedural and jurisdictional objections to the Commission’s revocation/authority and process (including lack of probable cause, excessive term, denial of full hearing, ex post facto claim); and (2) collateral attacks on his original 2008 sentencing and counsel’s effectiveness.
The Court denied the petition: it enforced Rahim’s SIS waivers and exhaustion requirements for most Commission claims, rejected the separation-of-powers challenge to Commission authority, and held it lacked jurisdiction over collateral attacks on the original sentence under D.C. law (§ 23-110).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Parole Commission’s authority to revoke/modify supervised release	Commission lacks authority / delegation violates separation of powers	Commission’s authority derives from the D.C. Revitalization Act and applicable D.C. Code; it exercises supervisory, not judicial, functions	Commission has statutory authority; no separation-of-powers violation
Validity of revocation process (probable cause, denial of hearing)	Warrant lacked probable cause; was denied full revocation hearing	Rahim waived hearing and appeal by consenting to SIS; administrative remedies not exhausted otherwise	Claims barred by express waiver and failure to exhaust; waiver enforceable
New supervised-release term and sentencing limits (excessiveness / ex post facto)	57-month term excessive and may violate Ex Post Facto Clause	Term was within statutory maximums and part of SIS bargain	Court declined review due to waiver/exhaustion; term within statutory authority if reviewed
Collateral challenges to original 2008 sentencing and counsel’s effectiveness	Sentencing court delegated supervised-release authority without proper colloquy; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Such claims must be brought under D.C. Code § 23-110 in Superior Court; federal court lacks jurisdiction absent showing § 23-110 is inadequate	Federal court lacks jurisdiction over these claims because Rahim did not pursue § 23-110 and did not show it was inadequate

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parolee is in custody for habeas purposes)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation proceedings are administrative with different rights than a criminal trial)
Banks v. Gonzales, 496 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2007) (supervised release considered custody for habeas)
Taylor v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 860 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2012) (Parole Commission authority over supervised release explained)
Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61 (5th Cir. 1994) (administrative exhaustion required before challenging Parole Commission decision in habeas)
Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (§ 23-110 vests Superior Court with exclusive jurisdiction over most collateral challenges)
Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (§ 23-110 adequacy requirement and limits on federal habeas jurisdiction)