Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03330/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03330-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

CLD-145 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3330

___________

SCOTT FARAH,

 Appellant

v.

WARDEN LORETTO FCI; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-00104)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

March 26, 2015

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 19, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3330 Document: 003112049723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
2

PER CURIAM

Scott Farah is a federal prisoner serving a sentence imposed by the United States 

District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He is incarcerated at the Federal 

Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania. Farah is one of at least fourteen Loretto 

inmates who have filed virtually identical habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the 

district of their confinement. Like those other inmates, Farah argues that the Bureau of 

Prisons has failed to provide a mechanism for “non-medical” reductions in sentences and 

that, under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, its alleged failure to do so invalidates his 

sentence and requires his immediate release from prison.

We have affirmed the District Court’s denial of twelve of these petitions. See

Saunders v. President U.S., 588 F. App’x 207 (3d Cir. 2015) (Nos. 14-2822 & 14-4159); 

Belt v. President U.S., 582 F. App’x 91 (3d Cir. 2014) (No. 14-3095); Voelzke v. 

President U.S., 582 F. App’x 89 (3d Cir. 2014) (Nos. 14-3310, 14-3327 & 14-3329); 

Hendricks v. President U.S., 575 F. App’x 19 (3d Cir. 2014) (Nos. 14-2702 through 14-

2708). (We dismissed a thirteenth related appeal as untimely at No. 14-3508.) Farah’s 

petition is substantively identical to the eight petitions we addressed in Saunders and 

Hendricks (though it lacks the additional claim we addressed in Belt and Voelzke). 

Farah too appeals from the District Court’s order denying his petition. Appellees 

have filed a motion for summary action, to which Farah has not responded. This appeal 

presents no substantial question for the reasons we already have explained in addressing 

Case: 14-3330 Document: 003112049723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
3

the substantively identical petitions noted above. For those reasons, appellees’ motion is 

granted and we will affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 (2010); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 14-3330 Document: 003112049723 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2015