2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-9-2009 

# Gle nn T urne r v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4531

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gle nn T urne r v . U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 472. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/472NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4531 G L E N N J O S E P H T U R N E R , a/k/ a G l en J os eph Turne r

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA G le n n J o s e p h T u rn e r, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 4846) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u B o is Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober6, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober9, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antG l enn J os eph Turne r , a pr o s e l i t i gant , s eeks r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctT he w r i tof habe as corpus i s avai l abl e onl yt o per s ons hel d “i n cus t odyi n vi ol at i on of 1 th e C o n s titu tio n o r l a w s o r t re a tie s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 (c )( 3 ). T urnerw as i n phy s i cal cus t odyi n a fe der al hal f w ayhous e atthe t i m e he f i l ed hi s pet i t i on 2 C our t ’ s O ct ober20, 2008 O r derdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus , w hi ch he f i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I . I n N ovember1985, T urnerw as s ent ence d i n fede r al courtt o fi ft een y ear s of i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed bya tw o- y eart erm of s peci al par ol e. I n J une 2005, T ur ner w a s re le a s e d f

ro m f e d e ra l in c a rc e ra tio n in to s u p e rv is e d p a ro le , w ith s p e c ia l c o n d itio n s . In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 7 , T u rn e r w a s c h a rg e d w ith v io latin g th e sp e c ial c o n d iti o n s o f h is p a ro le thatpr ohi bi t ed hi m fr om : ( 1) as s oci at i ng w i th m ember s of the Pagan M ot or cy cl e C l ub; ( 2) w ear i ng cl othi ng adorned w i th l ogo of the Pagan M ot or cy cl e C l ub; and ( 3) l eavi ng t he E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a w i thoutthe perm i s s i on of hi s s upervi s i ng U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi cer . Fol l ow i ng an A pr i l 2007 hear i ng, the U . S. Par ol e C om m i s s i on ( “the C o m m issi o n ”) rev o k ed T u rne r’s pa role a n d o rde red that h e se rve elev en m o n ths b ef o re b e in g re -p a ro led . T u rn e r a p p e a led th e C o m m iss io n ’s d e c isio n a n d th e N a tio n a l A p p e a ls B oar d ( “the B oar d”) deni ed r el i ef i n a Sept ember2007 opi ni on. I n l at e D ece m ber2007, T urnerw as r e- par ol ed fr om a fe der al hal f w ayhous e and pl ace d underthe s upervi s i on t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce of the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. I n N ovember2007, T urnerfi l ed a f eder al pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus i n t he D istric t C o u rt p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . H e a rg u e d th a t th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is p a ro le 1and i s curr ent l ypar ol ed w i th r es tr i ct i ons underthe s upervi s i on of the U . S. Pr obat i on

O f f i c e o f th e E a s t e r n D i s tr i c to f

P e n n s yl v a n i a . A c c o r d i n g l y, h e m e tth e “ c u s t o d y” r equi r ementof 28 U . S. C . § 2241. See J ones v. C unni ngham, 371 U . S. 236, 243 ( 1963) (pa role m ee ts th e “ in cu stod y ” re q u ir em en t fo r ha b ea s rev iew ). B e c a u se T u rn e r is a f

e d e ra l p riso n e r, h e d o e s n o t n e e d a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyto 2 appea l fr om the deni al of hi s § 2241 pet i t i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ; U ni t ed Sat es v. C ep ero , 2 2 4 F . 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 4 -65 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 3 vi ol at e hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s of fr eedom of as s oci at i on and s peec h. H e further cont ended thathe w as i l l egal l ychar ged w i th l eavi ng the j ur i s di ct i on of hi s s upervi s i ng o ff icer an d that the a u tho ri tyo f th e C o m m issi o n v iolates th e se p ara ti o n o f p o w ers doctr i ne of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Turne r ’ s pet i t i on, havi ng concl uded thatther e w as a r eas onabl e r el at i ons hi p betw een the condi t i ons of T u rne r’s pa role a n d legiti m ate g o v ern m en t i n terests. Itfu rth er f o u n d that the s tand ard tra v e l re stric tio n im p o se d u p o n T u rn e r w a s la w f u l an d th a t h is s e p a ra tio n o f p o w e rs c laim l acks m er i t . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o i s s ue a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand Turne r f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. 2 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ' s l egal concl us i ons . See R uggi ano v. R ei s h, 307 F. 3d 121, 126 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). A c o u rt' s ro le in re v iew in g d e c isio n s m a d e b yth e U n ited S tate s P a ro le C om m i s s i on on an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i s l i m i t ed. See G ambi no v. M orr i s , 134 F. 3d 156, 160 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . T he appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew i s w hether4

there i s a r at i on al basi s i n the r ecord fo r the C om m i ssi on ' s deci si on . Id. T he co urtm ust onl yens ur e thatthe C om m i s s i on' s deci s i on i s notarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous , norbas ed on im p e rm is s ib le c o n s id e ra tio n s . Id . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatt he C o m m is s io n h a d a ra tio n a l b a s is f o r i m p o s in g s p e c ia l c o n d itio n s o n T u rn e r’ s p a ro le .

III . A. F i r s tAme n d me n tCl a i ms T urnerfi r s tcl ai m ed i n hi s habea s pet i t i on thatthe condi t i ons of hi s par ol e vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s of fr eedom of as s oci at i on and s peec h. T urnerar gued that beca us e he c om m i t t ed the cr i m es r es ul t i ng i n hi s fede r al convi ct i on al one, he s houl d not be r es tr i ct ed fr om as s oci at i ng, i n anyw ay , w i th m ember s of the Pagan M ot or cy cl e C l ub ( the “Paga ns ”) . A s pr evi ous l ym ent i oned, the C om m i s s i on pr ohi bi t ed Turne rfr om as s oci at i ng w i th Pagans and w ear i ng cl othi ng w i th the Pagan l ogo. T hes e s peci al condi t i ons w er e i m pos ed bec aus e: ( 1) T urner ’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d s how ed thathi s pr evi ous crim inal ac ti v ityw as re lat ed to h is m em b ersh ip in the P ag an s an d (2) the P ag an s’ history of i nvol vementi n cr i m i nal act i vi tycoul d r es ul ti n T urner ’ s as s oci at i on w i th convi ct ed f e lo n s . A par ol ee’ s act i vi t i es , even thos e i nvol vi ng cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , m aybe r es tr i ct ed if th e re is a re a so n a b le b a sis to b e liev e th a t en g a g in g in th e p ro h ib ited a c tiv ityc o u ld hi nderr ehabi l i t at i on orpos e a da ngert o s oci ety . See U ni t ed St at es v. C r andon, 173 F. 3dT h e C o m m iss io n , in d e ter m in in g th e c o n d iti o n s o f T u rn e r’s p a ro le, w a s n o t li m ited to 3 cons i der i ng onl ym att er s di r ect l yr el at ed t o hi s m os tr ece ntoffe ns e of c onvi ct i on. See 18 U . S . C . § 4 2 0 9 (a)(2). 5 122, 127- 28 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . I n C r andon, w e af fi r m ed a s upervi s ed r el eas e r es tr i ct i on on Int ernetaccess i m po sed on a def end ant conv i ct ed o f recei ving chil d p ornog raphybecau se the condi t i on w as narr ow l yt ai l or ed and w as di r ect l yr el at ed t o det err i ng C r andon and p rotec ti n g the p u b li c. Id.; see also U n it ed S tat es v . B ero s, 8 3 3 F . 2 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (re stric tio n o n h o ld in g u n io n p o sitio n a n d re c e iv in g u n io n f u n d s w a s re a so n a b ly r el at ed t o pr event i on of futur e cr i m e bas ed on pr i orconvi ct i on forembezzl ementand m i s us e of uni on funds ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Show al t er , 933 F. 2d 573, 575- 76 ( 7th C i r . 1991) (r estri ct i on of associat i on w i th o ther ski nh eads an d n eo-N azi s w as properl yi m po sed as a condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e t o det erdefe ndantfr om engagi ng i n futur e cr i m i nal conduct ) . T he N i nth C i r cui thas expr es s l yuphel d a s peci al condi t i on of s upervi s ed re le a s e w h ic h p ro h ib ite d a p a ro le e f ro m a s s o c ia tin g w ith m e m b e rs o f m o to rc y c le c lu b s . U n it ed S tat es v . B o li n g er, 94 0 F . 2 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 0 -81 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). D es pi t e Turne r ’ s cont ent i ons , ther e i s s i gni fi cantevi dence demonstr at i ng thatt he sp e c ial c o n d iti o n re stric tin g h is c o n tac t w ith P a g a n m e m b e rs is re a so n a b lyre late d to h is pr i orcr i m i nal act i vi ty . T he C om m i s s i on i m pos ed the s peci al condi t i on bas ed on 3 T urner ’ s undi s put ed l ong- t erm r el at i ons hi p w i th the Pagans , i ncl udi ng a per i od i n a hi ghra n k in g p o sitio n , an d b e c a u se m u c h o f h is p rio r c rim in a l ac tiv ityw a s re late d to h is m ember s hi p i n t he Pagans . I n 1975, T urnerw as convi ct ed of a fi r earm s offe ns e ar i s i ngA l though t he condi t i on al s o pr ohi bi t ed Turne rfr om as s oci at i ng w i th m ember s of 4 otherm ot or cy cl e cl ubs thathad a hi s t oryof cr i m i nal act i vi ty , i tdoes notappea rthat T u rn e r c h a lle n g e d th a t a s p e c t o f th e c o n d itio n in h is a p p e a l o f th e C o m m is s io n ’s ru lin g . I ti s cl earthathe di d notr ai s e the cl ai m i n hi s habea s pet i t i on. T her efor e, w e w i l l not addr es s i tas nei therthe A ppeal s B oar d northe D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the c o n s titu tio n a lity o f

th e re s tr ic tio n o n a s s o c ia tio n w ith o th e r m o to rc y c le c lu b s . 6 fr om an i nci denti n w hi ch he poi nt ed a gun a ta per s on w ho w as acc us ed of s hoot i ng a m e m b e r o f

th e P a g a n s. In 1 9 7 6 , T u rn e r w a s c o n v icte d o f p a rticip a tin g in a lar g e -sc a le m ethamphet ami ne and PC P cons pi r acythatw as oper at ed byPagan mem ber s . I n 1980, T u rn e r ’ s p a r o l e wa s r e v o k e d wh e n h e we n tt o v i s i ta s t a t e i n ma t e wh o wa s a k n o wn P agan m em ber and a co-con spi rat or i n the drug co nspir acy . M oreove r, atT urner’ s m ost re c e n t p a ro le h e a rin g , h e a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d b e e n in c o n tac t w ith P a g a n m e m b e rs w h ile on par ol e and thathe had a n al m os tl i fe- l ong aff i l i at i on w i th the Pagans and fe l tobl i gat ed t o them for thei rs uppor tw hi l e he w as i n pr i s on. A tno poi ntdi d T urnercont es tthe C om m i ssi on ’s fi nd i ng that the P agan s have a his t oryof invo l vem ent i n cri m i nal act i vit i es. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe condi t i on pr ohi bi t i ng T urner ’ s cont act w ith P a g a n m e m b e rs w a s re a so n a b lyre late d to h is p rio r c rim in a l ac tiv itya n d in ten d e d to det erhi m fr om engagi ng i n futur e cr i m i nal act i vi tyand t o pr ot ectthe publ i c, and thus w as a val i d r es tr ai nton hi s r i ghtof fr eedom of as s oci at i on. See C r andon, 173 F. 3d at127- 28. 4 T he condi t i on thatT urnerr efr ai n fr om w ear i ng the l ogo of the Pagans i s s uppor t ed bythe s ame r at i onal e. A l though he ar gues thatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s rul i ng i n C ohen v. C al i forni a, 403 U . S. 15 ( 1971) , s houl d l ead us t o concl ude otherw i s e, hi s r el i ance on7

C ohen i s m i s pl ace d. I n C ohen, the def endantw as convi ct ed of di s turbi ng the pea ce w hen he w al ked thr ough a courthous e w ear i ng a j acke tbear i ng an expl et i ve. I d. at16. T he Supr eme C our tvaca t ed hi s convi ct i on, fi ndi ng thathi s convi ct i on r es t ed s ol el yupon t he c o n ten t o f

h is s p e e c h , an d th u s v io late d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e F irst a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts. Id . at 1 8 -1 9 . H e re , in c o n tra st, T u rn e r w a s a p a ro lee a n d th u s s u b jec t to r eas onabl e r es tr i ct i ons on hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T he r es tr i ct i on on w ear i ng Pagan l ogos i n the companyof cl ub m ember s i s r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the goal s of r ehabi l i t at i on a n d th e p r o t e c t i o n o f

s o c i e ty. B . R es tr i ct i ons on T r avel T u rn e r a lso c laim e d th a t th e C o m m iss io n e rre d b yc o n c lu d in g th a t h e v io late d h is c o n d i t i o n s o f

p a r o l e b ytr a v e l i n g o u t s i d e o f th e d i s tr i c twi th o u tp e r mi s s i o n . As m en ti o n ed , T u rne r i s u n d er the su p erv isi o n o f th e U . S . P rob ati o n O ff ice in the E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia. T u rn e r a d m itt e d to th e C o m m iss io n th a t h e tra v e led to D el aw ar e t o att end a mem or i al fora Pagan mem ber . H ow ever , he ar gued i n hi s pet i t i on thathi s tr avel t o D el aw ar e w as l aw ful beca us e D el aw ar e, as w el l as the di s tr i cti n w hi ch h e is p aro led, i s w ith in the ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n o f th is C o u rt . T h e D istri ct C o u rt co rrectl yn o ted th at th e f ac t th at D elaw are is w ith in the ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n o f th is C o u rt does notext end Turne r ’ s abi l i tyt o tr avel t o everydi s tr i ctw i thi n the Thi r d C i r cui tw i t hout the perm i s s i on of hi s pr obat i on offi cer . T hi s C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 i s di st i nct fr om the jur i sdi ct i on of the C om m i ssi on . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 4 21 0(a) . A s a8

p a ro lee , T u rn e r is in th e “ leg a l cu sto d ya n d u n d e r th e c o n tro l o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l” u n til th e e x p ir a tio n o f

h is p a ro le te rm . Id . Fur therm or e, t o t he ext entthatT urnerar gues thats uch tr avel r es tr i ct i ons i n gener al ar e uncons t i tut i onal , w e have pr evi ous l yhel d that“condi t i ons of pr obat i on i ncl ude r es tr i ct i ons on a def

endant ' s r i ghtt o tr avel . ” U ni t ed St at es v. W arr en, 186 F. 3d 358, 366 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; W i l l i ams v. W i s cons i n, 336 F. 3d 576, 581 ( 7th C i r . 2003) ( “Li ke pri soners, . . . parol ees . . . hav e no ri gh tt o co ntr ol w here theyl i ve in the U nit ed S t at es; the r i ghtt o t r avel i s ext i ngui s hed forthe ent i r e bal ance of thei rs ent ence s . ”) A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t T u rn e r w a s p ro p e rly char ged w i th a par ol e vi ol at i on forl eavi ng the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a w i thout the p erm issi o n o f h is pro b ati o n o ff icer. C . S e p a ra tio n o f

P o w e rs C laim L astl y , the D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yd eterm ined that T u rne r’s sep ara ti o n o f p o w ers cl ai m l acks m er i t . U nderthe D octr i ne of Sepa r at i on of Pow er s , eac h br anch of g o v e rn m e n t (ju d icia l, ex e c u tiv e , leg isla tiv e ) e x e rc ise s e x c lu siv e a u th o rityo v e r c e rta in m a tte rs . S e e I.N .S . v . C h a d h a , 4 6 2 U .S . 9 1 9 , 9 5 1 (1 9 8 3 ). T urnerhas notpr es ent ed a pl aus i bl e Separ at i on of Pow er s cl ai m t o chal l enge the author i tyof the C om m i s s i on t o i m pos e condi t i ons of par ol e upon hi m . T he C om m i s s i on has fu l l authori tyt o g rant , den yor r evo ke T urner’ s parol e; the C om m i ssi on m ayal so im p o se o r m o d ifythe c o n d it ion s o f h is pa role. S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § § § 4 2 0 8 , 4 2 0 9 , 4 2 1 4 . InA p p e lle e ’s m o tio n f o r l e a v e to f

ile its s u p p le m e n ta l a p p e n d ix u n d e r s e a l is g ra n te d . 5 S e e P a n s yv . B o ro u g h o f S tr o u d s b u rg , 2 3 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 8 6 -8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).

9 d o in g so , the C o m m iss io n d o e s n o t u su rp th e a u th o rityo f th e ju d icia rysu c h th a t it s d e c isio n s v io late th e D o c trin e o f S e p a ra tio n o f

P o w e rs. S e e G e ra g h tyv . U .S . P a ro le C o m m iss io n , 7 1 9 F .2 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 1 1 -1 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). T h e C o m m iss io n m a ylaw f u lly i m pos e r eas onabl e condi t i ons of par ol e, s ee 18 U . S. C . § 4209( a) , and, as w e have concl uded, the C om m i s s i on’ s condi t i ons i n thi s cas e ar e r eas onabl e and r at i onal l yr el at ed to th e g o a ls o f

T u rn e r’ s p a ro le . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 5