DID THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL VIOLATE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS WHEN THEY AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF TO PETITIONER WITHOUT REVISITING JONAS V. WAINWRIGHT, 779 F.2D 1576 (11TH CIR. 1986) FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING A CIRCUIT COURT'S CONFLICT BETWEEN JONAS AND THE UNITED STATES TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN JOOST V. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, 698 F.2D 418 (10TH CIR. 1983) ON AN ISSUE OF FEDERAL LAW THAT A VIOLATION OF PAROLE BOARD'S OWN REGULATIONS, BARRING CONSIDERATION AND RELIANCE ON CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR WHICH PROSPECTIVE PAROLEE HAD BEEN ACQUITTED VIOLATES PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION BY GOVERNMENT AGENCY?

Did the judges of the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal err when they affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to petitioner without revisiting Jonas v. Wainwright, 779 F.2d 1576 (11th Cir. 1986) for the purpose of resolving a circuit court conflict between Jonas and the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Joost v. U.S. Parole Commission, 698 F.2d 418 (10th Cir. 1983) on an important matter of federal law that a violation of parole board's own regulations, barring consideration and reliance on criminal offenses for which prospective parolee had been acquitted, violates petitioner's constitutional due process protections against arbitrary action by government agency?