514 January 31, 2024 No. 63 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON GILBERT DONALD GUILLEN, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.

Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision A179828 Argued November 30, 2023.

Liza Lanford argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.

Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.

SHORR, P. J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 330 Or App 514 (2024) 515 SHORR, P. J.

Petitioner seeks judicial review of a September 26, 2022, order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that, pursuant to ORS 163A.100 and OAR 255- 085-0020, set his sex offender notification level at Level III (High). Petitioner asserts that, because the board adopted the Static-99R actuarial instrument for classifying sex offenders, the board exceeded its statutory authority when it adopted additional rules providing for deviation from the Static-99 coding manual.

Petitioner has failed to develop his argument that the board, upon adopting an actuarial instrument, was prohibited from deviating from that instrument. Petitioner asserts that ORS 163A.100 “delegated the power to pick and apply a coding instrument based on studies, empirical data and statistics.” However, that language does not appear in ORS 163A.100. ORS 163A.100 states only that the board shall “adopt by rule a sex offender risk assessment method- ology for use in classifying sex offenders,” resulting in plac- ing each offender into low, moderate, or high risk categories.

Although petitioner advances a number of policy arguments regarding the scientific validity of the board’s choice to dis- regard time an individual is sex-offense-free in the commu- nity—arguments that we discussed at length in Sohappy v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28, 540 P3d 568 (2023) and Watson v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 13, 20-21, 540 P3d 20 (2023)—the challenge raised in this matter is limited to petitioner’s undeveloped assertion that the board exceeded its statutory authority in adopting rules that deviated from the Static-99 methodology. Because petitioner has failed to develop that argument, we reject it.

Affirmed.