Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02532/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02532-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tino Fiumara
Appellant
Jerry A. O'Brien
Appellee

Document Text:

,' t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

TINO FIUMARA, 

Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

TPnth Circuit 

APR O 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs . ) Case No. 88-2532 

) 

JERRY A. O'BRIEN, Warden, U.S.P. 

Leavenworth, 

Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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., and Donald R. Hoffman, of 

Tilton, Beck & Hoffman, Topeka, Kansas, for Petitioner/Appellant 

Benjamin L. Burgess, Jr. and Connie R. DeArmond, of the United 

States Attorney's Office, Topeka, Kansas, for Respondent/Appellee. 

Before McKAY, Circuit Judge, SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, and 

PHILLIPS**, District Judge. 

PHILLIPS, District Judge. 

*This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 (Jan. 1 , 1989). 

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

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

1 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 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 

properly brought to the attention of the Probation Department 

Fiumara's alleged involvement in four murders.i 

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 

Collucci 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). 

isee 18 U.S.C. § 3577 (renumbered 3661, effective Nov. 1, 

1986);\tilliarns v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 2 
4 

• I 

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 

Although the hearing apparently spanned eleven days and consists 

of more than 1700 pages of transcript, Fiumara has included in 

this record on appeal excerpts from only two transcript pages of 

those proceedings. Fiumara's submission consists of excerpts of 

the trial judge's comments at the conclusion of the hearing 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 Fatica hearing was not to find the 

defendant "guilty" or "not guilty" of uncharged murders. (See 

Record on Appeal, Doc. No. 23, Attachment I, Fatica 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 panel stated: 

The Panel takes note of the seriousness of the offense, 

which has involved extortionate threats and 

2 See United States v. Fatica, 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: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 3 
- ' 

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 

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. Fatico 

and letter of August 1, 1984, from Special Attorney 

Stanley R. Chesler and other relevant material available 

in the USPC/BOP file. 

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

On December 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. 

(See 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 28 C.F.R. § 2.17(b) (July 1, 1983). 

4 

(See District 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 4 
0 

• I 

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. 

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 styled. 

(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. 

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

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 5 
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 

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, Doc. No. 24, Ex. A). 3 

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 

3 As specifically noted below on pages 7 and 8 & n.5 the 

complete evidentiary items numbered 1-3 are not part of the record 

on appeal. 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 6 
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 Attorney 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). 

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 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 7 
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). 

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. Volanty v. U.S. 

Parole Comm'n, No. 88-1700, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. Dec. 28, 

1988) (per curiam) (even charges dismissed "with prejudice" may be 

considered by the Commission unless in violation of a plea 

agreement); 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. 

United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979). 

In the record before this Court, we can 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 

of the October 2, 

above, these three sources were pages 1440-50 

1979 sentencing hearing transcript, and the 

8 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 8 
letters from two prosecutors, Stanley R. Chesler and W. Hunt 

Dumont. Appellant, however, has failed to provide this Court with 

a complete copy of these materials. 

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 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. 4 

Similarly, appellant's argument that the Parole Commission erred 

by finding him responsible for the murders turns on an analysis 

of the same underlying materials which are not before us. 

Fiumara can hardly expect this Court to declare as arbitrary 

and capricious the actions of the Parole Commission without 

providing us with the very materials relied upon by the 

Commission. 5 In short, appellant has failed to establish that the 

4 The apparent connection is that Fiumara's Hobbs Act and RICO 

offenses were characterized by threats and intimidation, and that 

Fiumara was feared because of his violent and ruthless nature. 

5 It was appellant's burden to ensure that such materials are 

part of the record on appeal. Southwest Forest Indus., Inc. v. 

Sutton, No. 86-1183, slip op. at 12 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 1989) 

(1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1515); Neu v. Grant, 548 F.2d 281, 286 (10th 

Cir. 1977) ("Matters not appearing in the record will not be 

considered by the court of appeals."); McCullough Tool Co. v. Well 

Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 

U.S. 933 (1966); see 10th Cir. R. 10.2.5 (Jan. 1, 1989) (same as 

prior rule adopted Nov. 18, 1986). 

9 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 9 
.. 

' 

Parole Commission's decision denying Fiumara parole was arbitrary 

and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the 

Parole 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. 

Entered by the Court 

LAYN R. PHILLIPS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

10 

Appellate Case: 88-2532 Document: 010110035029 Date Filed: 04/06/1989 Page: 10