Taylor v. United States Parole Commission, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63472

Taylor was convicted in 2002 of distribution of heroin and given five years' imprisonment with five years' supervised release, all suspended and replaced by two years' supervised probation.
In 2004, a Superior Court judge revoked probation and imposed 20 months' incarceration followed by two years' supervised release.
Subsequent revocations of supervised release led to additional prison terms, with the latest return to custody occurring July 8, 2011.
A July 2011 warrant alleged supervision violations (failure to report and failure to undergo drug treatment); a parallel arrest for possession with intent to distribute heroin occurred July 1, 2011.
An August 8, 2011 revocation hearing resulted in a decision to revoke supervised release and impose a new 16-month term commencing July 8, 2011, with no further term of supervised release after imprisonment.
Taylor challenged the Parole Commission’s authority via habeas corpus, which the court denied as meritless and a (potential) successive petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to revoke and impose	Taylor contends the Parole Commission lacks authority to revoke supervised release and sentence anew.	USPC asserts jurisdiction over supervised release and authority to revoke and reimpose terms; such actions do not usurp judicial functions.	USPC authority to revoke and impose is proper; petition denied.
Successive petition	Taylor argues this is a permissible habeas challenge despite prior actions.	USPC argues it is a successive petition not suitable for relief.	The petition is meritless and/ or successive; denied.
Constitutional and statutory compliance	Taylor claims violation of constitutional or statutory constraints in the revocation process.	USPC maintains proceedings complied with governing statutes and regulations.	No constitutional or statutory violation shown; authority validated.
Juridical jurisdiction over supervised release	Taylor asserts improper jurisdiction for supervising release terms.	Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and USPC jurisdiction is established by DC and federal law.	USPC has jurisdiction over supervised release; proper authority exists.
Separation of powers concern	Taylor may argue usurpation of judicial function by the Parole Commission.	Authorities show revocation hearings are within the functional equivalent of parole/probation revocation and do not violate separation of powers.	No separation-of-powers violation found; actions valid.

Jones v. United States, 669 A.2d 724 (D.C. 1995) (supervised release revocation hearing akin to parole revocation)
Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008) (successive habeas petitions considerations; merits of prior actions)