Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines to require consideration of the expected costs of imprisonment and/or supervised release as one of several factors in calculating fines for individual defendants. U.S. Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, App. C, amend. 572. 15 . See Blagman v. White, 112 F.Supp.2d 534, 538, n. 6 (E.D.Va.2000) (citing Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 223, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990) (reasonableness standard applies whenever the needs of prison administration implicate constitutional rights); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (laying out a four factor test for determining reasonableness in the prison context)). 16 . See also, Woodley v. Department of Corrections, 74 F.Supp.2d 623, 627 (E.D.Va.1999)
holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that a paralee who is released on mandatory parole is still technically a prisoner and thus entitled to goodtime credit if placed in a halfway house or other correctional facility under the authority of the parole board holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole holding that there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation holding that no due process or other constitutional violation occurred when a virginia parolee was required to pay for room board and other costs incurred while serving out his sentence at a halfway house and noting that what little law there is on the subject supports the proposition that a state may require a prisoner to pay the costs of supervision as a condition of parole and that there is no supreme court case holding or even hinting to the contrary