Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02532/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02532-1/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

TINO FIUMARA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FI LED 

Uoitcd States Court of Appeals 'r" t (" . L enti'! ,.,l:CUt! 

/

'll'lV' t 1()"9 \. u .... v .:Jb 

ROBERT L. I-IOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2532 

JERRY A. O'BRIEN, Warden, u.s.P. 

Leavenworth, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. NO. 87-3084) 

Thomas R. Dyson, Jr., Washington, D.C. (Donald R. Hoffman, of 

Tilton, Beck & Hoffman, Topeka, Kansas, with him on the brief) for 

Petitioner-Appellant. 

Alleen s. Castellani (Benjamin L.·Burgess, Jr. and Connie DeArmand 

with her on the brief) of the Office of the United States 

Attorney, Topeka, Kansas, for Respondent-Appellee. 

Before McKAY and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District 

Judge.* 

PHILLIPS, District Judge. 

*Honorable Layn R. Phillips, United States District Judge 'for the 

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 1 
Appellant Tino Fiumara is an inmate at the United states 

Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is serving a sentence 

of twenty-five (25) years, eight (8) months, and seventeen (17) days 

arising out of convictions he suffered in the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of New York. Fiumara was convicted 

in New Jersey of two violations of the Hobbs Act, involving 

interference with commerce by threats and violence. Fiumara was 

convicted in New York of one count of RICO conspiracy, one 

substantive violation of the RICO statute, two counts of filing 

false income tax returns, and thirty-five violations of the Hobbs 

Act. 

Prior to Fiumara's sentencing in New Jersey, the government 

prosecutor properly brought to the attention of ·the Probation 

Department Fiumara's alleged involvement in four murders. 1 

The allegations contained in the prosecutor's letter were as 

follows: 

1. on or about October 14, 1967, at the 309 Club, 

located at 309 Lafayette street, Newark, New Jersey, the 

defendant Tino Fiumara murdered Peter Mantella also known 

as "Flatnose Pete", Patsy Cellucci and Nicholas Cellucci 

by shooting them to death. 

2. Between on or about January 1, 1969, and March 1969, 

at the City of Paterson, New Jersey, the defendant Tino 

Fiumara and others murdered Robert Harris by_beating and 

shooting him. 

Fiumara's Appeal Brief at 3, No. 88-2532 {Nov. 11, 1988). 

1 See 18 u.s.c. § 3577 (renumbered 3661, effective Nov. 1, 

1986); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 {1949). 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 2 
Fiumara has never been charged or tried on these murders. The 

prosecutor's letter, which was appended to the pre-sentence report, 

was challenged by Fiumara and an extensive pre-sentencing hearing 

was held before the district judge in New Jersey. 2 At the 

conclusion of that hearing the trial judge commented to the effect 

that: (1) the defendant was not on trial for homicide; (2) the trial 

court would not sentence the defendant for homicide; and (3) the 

function of the Fatico hearing was not to find the defendant 

"guilty" or "not . guilty" of uncharged murders. ( See Record on 

Appeal, Doc. No. 23, Attachment I, Fatico Sentencing Transcript, No. 

78-319 at 1717 & 1719 (D.C.N.J. Oct. 2, 1979); Fiumara's Appeal 

Brief at 5 n.9 & 6 n.11, No. 88-2532 (Nov. 11, 1988)). The trial 

court made no findings on Fiumara's involvement in the four murders 

prior to sentencing. 

On June 19, 1984, appellant was afforded his initial parole 

determination hearing at United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, 

Kansas ("USPL"). The Parole Panel stated: 

. The Panel takes note of the seriousness of the offense, 

which has involved extortionate threats and participation 

in racketeering activity. The Panel also takes note of 

the allegations concerning the murder of three individuals 

and the participation in a high level in organized crime 

activity. 

The Panel is of the opinion there is not sufficient 

information in the file at the present time, to make a 

finding concerning these allegations. It is the opinion 

of the Panel, this case should be referred for original 

2

see United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2nd cir. 1978), on 

remand, 458 F. Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053 (2nd Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 (1980). 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 3 
jurisdiction consideration so that further information 

can be requested from the strike force authorities in the 

New York/New Jersey areas and hopefully further 

clarification of the overall involvement would be 

available at that time. 

(See District Court Record, Doc. No. 8, Ex. 1.) 

On August 14, 1984, appellant received a Notice of Action 

indicating that a rehearing had been scheduled to: 

discuss information contained in transcript from Fatica 

and letter of August 1, 1984, from Special Attorney 

Stanley Ro Chesler and other relevant material available 

in the USPC/BOP file. 

(See District Court Record, Doc. No. 8, Ex. 2.) 

On De~ember 19, 1984, the United States Parole Commission 

afforded appellant a special rehearing. 

Commission stated: 

At that hearing, the 

After consideration of the new information that has been 

presented by the special attorney [Chesler] as well as 

the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, this panel is of the 

opinion the present offense behavior should be rated as 

Category Eight severity. The information presented does 

show that Fiumara was much more involved in organized 

crime activity which included extortion, racketeering and 

murder. Information presented indicates that Fiumara was 

responsible for the murder of 4 persons and that is the 

basis for the Category Eight recommendation by the panel. 

(~ee District Court Record, Doc. No. 8, Ex. 3). 

The Panel additionally recommended that the case be referred to the 

National Commissioners as an original jurisdiction case pursuant to 

2 8 C • F . R. § 2 • 1 7 ( b) (July 1 , 19 8 3 ) • (See District Court Record, 

Doc. No. 8, Ex. 3). 

Appellant was notified by Notice of Action dated January 14, 

1985, that his case had been designated as original jurisdiction 

and referred to the National Commissioners. 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 4 
( 

On February 19, 1985, the National Commissioners, after review 

of appellant's case, issued its Notice of Action ordering that 

appellant be required to serve the expiration of his sentence. The 

Commission provided the following reason for its decision: 

Your offense behavior has been rated as Category Eight 

severity because it involved murder, extortion and 

racketeering. Your Salient Factor Score is 10. You 

have been in federal custody a total of 68 monhts [sic]. 

Guidelines established by the Commission for adult cases 

which consider the above factors indicate a range of 100+ 

months to be served before release for cases with good 

institutional adjustment and program achievement. After 

review of all relevant factors and information presented, 

a decision above the base of the guidelines is warranted 

because of the aggravated nature of your offense behavior; 

a preponderance of the evidence shows that you were 

involved in the murder of 4 people. Additionally. you 

were a principal in an unusually extensive. sophisticated. 

on-going criminal enterprise controlling and directing the 

criminal actions of your co-conspirators. By means of 

extortion. you controlled the New Jersey waterfront. You 

are also a more serious risk than indicated by your 

salient factor score as indicated by your long term 

commitment to a criminal life style. 

(See District Court Record, Doc. No. 8, Ex. 7 (emphasis added)). 

As permitted by regulation, Fiumara appealed the foregoing 

decision to the Commission's National Appeals Board. 

The National Appeals Board affirmed the Commission's decision 

by Notice of Action ·issued October 31, 1985. 

Record, Doc. No. 8, Ex. 9). 

(See District Court 

After appellant's attempts to have the Parole Commission's 

decision reversed on the administrative level failed, appellant 

filed a petition for habeas corpus relief on March 27, 1987. 

On February 29, 1988, the district court remanded the case to 

the Parole Commission for rehearing because the Commission did not 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 5 
identify any of the evidence relied on for its decision as required 

by 18 u.s.c. § 4206 and thus did not comply with the statutory 

requirements. Fiumara v. O'Brian, No. 87-3084, slip op. at 8 (D.C. 

Kan. Feb. 29, 1988) (Record On Appeal, Doc. No. 16). The district 

court remanded the case to the Parole Commission with directions 

that a rehearing be held within 30 days. 

Upon rehearing, the Parole Commission, in a Notice of Action 

dated May 17, 1988, stated: 

After review of all relevant factors and information 

presented, a decision above the guidelines appears 

warranted because your offense includes the following 

murders. The basis of this finding (sic] are: (1) 

Sentencing hearing proceedings criminal# 78-319, October 

2, 1979, U. s. District Court for the District of New 

Jersey, pages 1440-1450; (2) Letter of August 1, 1984, by 

Stanley R. Chesler, Special Attorney, Organized Crime and 

Racketeering Section, Newark Strike Force; and (3) Letter 

of August 3, 1984, by W. Hunt Dumont, U.S. Attorney, 

District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey. 

(See District Court Record, No. 87-3084-O, Supp. Vols. I & II, Exs. 

11, 12, & in camera Ex. A; see also Order, No. 88-2532 (10th cir. 

May 18, 1989) (granting appellant's petition for rehearing and 

enlarging record on appeal)). 

On September 12, 1988, the district court issued a Memorandum 

And Order denying appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

The Court stated: 

The court finds no abuse of discretion in the Commission's 

decision to deny petitioner parole. In categorizing 

petitioner's offense severity, the Parole Commission 

considered evidence from three different sources 

indicating that petitioner had been involved in four 

murders. The sentencing hearing proceeding, the letter 

from Special Att6rney Stanley R. Chesler, and the letter 

from U.S. Attorney W. Hunt Dumont all provided 

corroborating evidence of petitioner's involvement in the 

murders and the connection between the murders and the 

racketeering charge. (emphasis added). 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 6 
Fiumara v. O'Brien, No. 87-3084-O, slip op. at 5 (D.C. Kan. Sept. 

12, 1988) (Record On Appeal, Doc. No. 27). The district court's 

decision is presently before this Court on appeal. 

On appeal, Fiumara•s principal claims are that (1) the Parole 

Commission improperly used the murders to increase appellant's 

offense severity rating from Category Five to Category Eight, and 

(2) the Parole Commission's determination that Fiumara was 

responsible for four murders was arbitrary and capricious. 

As noted by the district court below, judicial review of Parole 

Commission determinations is quite limited. The standard is whether 

the decision is arbitrary and capricious or is an abuse of 

discretion. Misasi v. U.S. Parole Comm•n, 835 F.2d 754, 758 (10th 

cir. 1987); Dunn v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 818 F.2d 742, 744 (10th cir. 

1987); Dye v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 558 F.2d 1376, 1378 (10th Cir. 

1977); see generally. Annotation, United States Parole Commission 

Guidelines For Federal Prisoners, 61 A.L.R. Fed. 135 (1983). Appeal 

courts may not reweigh evidence, repass on the credibility of 

reports, or substitute their judgment for that of the Commission. 

Dye v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 558 F.2d at 1378; Solomon v. Elsea, 676 

F.2d 282, 290 (7th Cir. 1982); cf. Anderson v. City of Bessemer 

City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) (even at the heightened standard 

of clearly. erroneous, appellate court may not substitute its 

judgment, or reweigh evidence that is plausible in light of the 

record in its entirety). 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 7 
Moreover, the Commission is not limited to the consideration 

of formally adjudicated crimes, and is entitled to consider 

information from prosecutors and other parties when making its 

determinations regarding the release of prisoners. Christopher v. 

U.S. Bd. of Parole, 589 F.2d 924, 932 (7th Cir. 1978); 28 C.F.R. § 

2.20(d) (July 1, 1983); see Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. at 246-

47; see generally. Annotation, Information Considered by United 

States Parole Commission In Making Determinations Relating To 

Release On Parole Under§ 2 of Parole Commission And Reorganization 

Act (18 U.S.C.S. §§ 4201 et seq.), 58 A.L.R. Fed. 911 (1982). 

Similarly, the Parole Commission is not bound by the trial judge's 

decision to not consider evidence of murders when sentencing the 

defendant. See Robinson v. Hadden, 723 F.2d 59, 62-63 (10th Cir. 

1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 906 (1984); Nunez-Guardado v. Hadden, 

722 F.2d 618, 622 (10th Cir. 1983). 

We find no abuse of discretion in the Commission's decision to 

deny Fiumara parole. In reaching its decision to increase Fiumara's 

offense severity, the Parole Commission considered evidence from 

three different sources. As noted above, these three sources were 

pages 1440-50 of the October 2, 1979 sentencing hearing transcript, 

and the letters from two prosecutors, Stanley R. Chesler and W. Hunt 

Dumont. 

Appellant's argument that the Parole Commission improperly 

increased his severity rating hinges on his claim that there is no 

relationship between the four murders and the numerous racketeering 

and extortion charges of which he stands convicted. Both the Parole 

8 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 8 
Commission and the district court below, however, found such a nexus 

from a review . of the three evidentiary sources. Indeed, after 

reviewing these materials, the district court specifically cited 

the "connection" between the murders and the racketeering charges 

as a basis for denying Fiumara's writ. Similarly, appellant's 

argument that the Parole Commission erred by finding him responsible 

for the murders turns on an analysis of the same underlying 

documents. 

After careful review of these documents, our analysis confirms 

that there was no abuse of discretion by the Parole Commission in 

finding Tino Fiumara responsible, although unconvicted, for four 

murders. 3 There was sufficient evidence to show that Fiumara was 

feared because of his violent and ruthless nature, thus providing 

the nexus between the unconvicted murders and his Hobbs Act and Rico 

offenses. The Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in 

using the murders to increase Fiumara's offense severity rating from 

Category Five to Category Eight. 

In short, appellant has failed to establish that the Parole 

Commission's decision denying Fiumara parole was arbitrary and 

capricious or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Parole 

3

The Panel previously entered an Order and Judgment affirming 

the district court in this case on April 6, 1989. The Panel noted 

that the evidentiary documents relied on by the Parole Commission, 

and then the district court, were not designated in the record and 

therefore could not be reviewed. On May 18, 1989, the Panel 

granted appellant's petition for rehearing and ordered the record 

enlarged to include these materials which we have now reviewed, 

including evidence that the district court sealed and filed in 

camera. These materials remain sealed and filed in camera before 

this Court. 

9 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 9 
Commission's decision is affirmed for substantially the same reasons 

as set forth in the district court's Memorandum And Order of 

September 12, 1988 .. 

U'l'IRMED. 

10 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110063807 Date Filed: 11/06/1989 Page: 10