The opinion
PER CURIAM
Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions of post-prison supervision. Most of his arguments are resolved by our decisions in Schuch v. Board of Parole, 139 Or App 327 , 912 P2d 403 , rev den 324 Or 78 (1996), and Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or App 7 , 924 P2d 329 , mod on recons 144 Or App 375 , 927 P2d 138 (1996). We do not discuss those arguments any further.
Petitioner also argues that the Board did not have the authority to designate him a “high risk dangerous offender,” because only a court may decide that a person is a “dangerous offender” under ORS 161.725 to ORS 161.737. Petitioner misunderstands the Board’s action. It did not purport to determine that he is a dangerous offender under the statute. Instead, it determined that he needed a higher level of supervision than do most persons on post-prison supervision. The similarity of terminology does not reflect a similarity of authority or of effect.
Affirmed.