to the conviction.’ Syl. Pt. 20, State v. Thomas, 157 W.Va. 640, 203 S.E.2d 445 (1974).” See also, Syllabus Point 5, State ex rel. Grob v. Blair, 158 W.Va. 647, 214 S.E.2d 330 (1975) (“Failure to observe a constitutional right constitutes reversible error unless it can be shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Assuming, without deciding, that the instant error rose to the level of a due process issue, we have absolutely no doubt that this error was harmless and did not contribute to the appellant’s parole revocation. See, Carlton v. Keohane, 691 F.2d 992 (11th Cir.1982) (failure of parole commission to abide by statutory time limit for review of detainers was not done in bad faith to warrant habeas relief); Bradley v. Fairfax, 634 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Northington v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 587 F.2d 2
holding that disclosure of grand jury materials to parole commission was harmless error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that any error in parole board not following its rules regarding notice of hearing was harmless holding exclusion was harmless error holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings