2007 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 2-1-2007 

# W i lli ams v . S he rm an 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 . 06-1443

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_2007

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 2007 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 " W i ll i am s v . S he rm an" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1689. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1689NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 06- 1443

____________ FRE D ER I CK B. W I LLI A M S, A p p e llan t,

v. WARDE N J AM E S F . S HE RMAN

____________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l N o. 05–cv- 00242E D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary9, 2007 B efore: S L O V ITE R and R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es,

and R U FE , * D i s tr i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: February1, 2007)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________

__________________ * H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe, J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2

R U FE , D i s tr i ctJ udge. T he i ns t antcas e i s befor e the C our ton appea l fr om a deni al of A ppel l ant Fr eder i ck B . W i l l i ams’ pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . A ppel l ee a r gues thatthe app eal has bee n rende red m oo tbyW i l l i am s’ rel ease from pri son in M arch 20 06 . B ecause w e a g re e , th e a p p e a l w ill b e d is m is s e d . I. I n M ay2001, W i l l i ams w as s ent ence d t o 84 m onths i n pr i s on and a s ubs equent th r e e - ye a rt e r m o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e o n a c o n v i c t i o n f o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n . I n De c e mb e r2 0 0 4 , wh i l e s e r v i n g h i s s e n t e n c e a tF CI M c Ke a n , W i l l i a ms l e f tth e f a c i l i tywi th o u tp e r mi s s i o n i n o r d e rt o s p e n d a n i g h twi th h i s g i r l f r i e n d . He vol unt ar i l yr eturned t o t he fa ci l i tythe fol l ow i ng m orni ng, butw as nonethel es s char ged w i th es cape . See A pp. t o B r . of A ppel l ant , V ol . I I , at65–69, I nci dentR eportN o. 1 2 9 5 4 1 0 . In A p ril 2 0 0 5 , W ill iam s w a s tra n sp o rte d to th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to a w a it p ro c e ss in g o f

th e f e d e ra l es c a p e -f

ro m -c u sto d yc h a rg e . O n A u g u st 4 , 2 0 0 5 , w h ile W i l l i ams w as s t i l l i n t he W es t ern D i s tr i ct , a D i s ci pl i ne H ear i ng O ffi cer( “D H O ”) hel d an i n abs ent i a hear i ng w i th r es pectt o the i nci dent , and det erm i ned that : ( 1) 27 day s of goodc o n d u c t ti m e sh o u ld b e d isa llo w e d ; (2 ) 6 0 d a y s o f n o n -v e ste d g o o d -c o n d u c t ti m e sh o u ld be for fei t ed; and ( 3) W i l l i ams s houl d be tr ans ferr ed t o a s ecur e fa ci l i ty . See i d. at259, I nm at e D i s ci pl i ne, H ear i ng/ Fi ndi ngs . T he hea r i ng w as hel d, even though W i l l i ams w as3

notpr es ent , beca us e hi s i ni t i al r el eas e dat e of A ugus t5, 2005, w as i m m i nentand no in ter n a l d isc ip lin a rya c tio n h a d b e e n tak e n . O n A u g u st 8 , 2 0 0 5 , W ill iam s p lea d e d g u ilty to th e e sc a p e c h a rg e a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to six m o n th s im p riso n m e n t co n se c u tiv e to h is f e lo n -i n -p o s s e s s io n s e n te n c e . O n A ugus t22, 2005, aft erhe r eturned t o FC I M cK ean, W i l l i ams fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, chal l engi ng the pr ocedur e and s ubs t ance of the pr opos ed s anct i ons . See i d. at12–14, Pet i t i on forW r i tof H abea s C orpus Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 Bya P e r s o n i n Cu s t o d y . On Au g u s t3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , th e DHO conduct ed an i n- per s on di s ci pl i naryhear i ng i n w hi ch he r eaf fi r m ed hi s pr evi ous fi ndi ngs and i m pos ed the above - des cr i bed s anct i ons . See i d. at302–04. A ft eraddi ng the t erm of i m pr i s onm entforhi s es cape convi ct i on ont o the t erm of i m pr i s onm entforhi s fel on- i npo sses si on con vict i on , and aft er i m po si ng the sanc t i on s, W i l l i am s’ anti ci pated r el ease d a te w a s re e s ta b lis h e d a s M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . O n J anuary19, 2006, aft era s er i es of pr ocee di ngs , the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed W i l l i ams’ habea s pet i t i on forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . A pp. t o B r . of A ppel l ant , V ol . I , at2, M emora ndum O r der ; s ee i d. at3–8, M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R epor tand Re c o mm e n d a t i o n . Wi l l i a ms t i me l ya p p e a l e d th a td e c i s i o n t o th i s Co u r t . I d . a t1 . On M ar ch 29, 2006, how ever , W i l l i ams w as r el eas ed fr om the cus t odyof the B ur eau of P ri s o n s a n d b e g a n to s e rv e h is th re e -ye a r t e rm o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .4 II. I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatfede r al court s do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o deci de an i s s ue unl es s i tpr es ent s a l i ve ca s e orcontr over s y . D eFuni s v. O degaa r d, 416 U . S. 312, 316 ( 1974) . T he “c as e orcontr over s yr equi r ements ubs i s t s thr ough al l s t ages of fe der al j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , tr i al and appe l l at e. . . . T he part i es m us tcont i nue t o have a per s onal s t ake i n the out come of t he l aw s ui t . ” Lew i s v. C ont ’ l B ank C orp. , 494 U . S. 472, 477–78 ( 1990) . W hatw as once a l i ve ca s e orcontr over s ym aybecome m ooti f ( 1) the al l eged vi ol at i on has cea s ed and ther e i s no r eas onabl e expe ct at i on thati tw i l l r ecur , and ( 2) “i nt er i m r el i ef orevent s have c om pl et el yand i rr evoca bl yer adi cat ed the ef fec t s of the al l eged vi ol at i on. ” C ount yof Los A ngel es v. D avi s , 440 U . S. 625, 631 ( 1979) . W hi l e an inca rce rated inm ate’s ch all en g e to th e v ali d ityo f h is i n ca rce rati o n sati sfies th e c ase -orcontr over s yr equi r ement , the i nm at e’ s s ui tbecomes m ootupon r el eas e unl es s he ors he ca n d em o n str ate so m e “ co ll ateral co n seq u en ce ” tha t persist s b ey o n d the s en tenc e’s expi r at i on and i s “l i kel yt o be r edr es s ed bya fa vor abl e j udi ci al deci s i on. ” Spence rv. K em n a, 52 3 U . S . 1 , 7 (19 9 8 ) (ho lding that ev en if a rev o ca ti o n o f p aro le w as im p rop er, j ur i s di ct i on di d notexi s taft erthe pet i t i onerw as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on and hi s t erm of im p ri s o n m e n t e x p ir e d ). S in c e W ill iam s’ h a b e a s p e tit io n c h a llen g e d o n lyth e sa n c tio n s im p o se d a s a re su lt of hi s es cape , i tw as fi l ed pur el yi n an ef for tt o s ecur e hi s r el eas e ata dat e ea r l i erthan that cal cul at ed bythe D H O . T he onl ypot ent i al cons equenc e of the i m pos ed s anct i ons , ot herW e e x p re ss n o o p in io n o n th e su b sta n tiv e a rg u m e n ts a d v a n c e d b yW ill iam s in h is 1 br i ef. 5 th a n th e in c re a se d p e rio d o f in c a rc e ra tio n , is th e d e lay of th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

h is s upervi s ed- r el eas e t erm . A del ay ed comm ence m entof s upervi s ed r el eas e due t o an a lleg e d w ro n g f

u l ca lcu latio n o f

g o o d -c o n d u c t ti m e c a n n o t b e re d re ss e d b ya f a v o ra b le j udi ci al deci s i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 529 U . S. 53, 60 ( 2000) . B ys t atut e, s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e ma yc o mme n c e o n l yu p o n a n i n ma t e ’ s r e l e a s e f r o m p r i s o n , 1 8 U. S . C. § 3624( e) ( 2000) , and once comm ence d, an i ndi vi dual ’ s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e runs f o r th e p e rio d o rd e re d b yth e se n ten c in g c o u rt. S e e Jo h n so n , 5 2 9 U .S . at 5 6

– 6 0 . T h is t erm “ca nnotbe r educe d ‘ byr eas on of exc es s t i m e s erved i n pr i s on. ’ ” D eFoyv. M c C u llo u g h , 3 9 3 F .3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 2 n .3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o tin g J o h n s o n , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 6 0 ).

C ons equent l y , gi ven W i l l i ams’ r el eas e fr om pr i s on on M ar ch 29, 2006, and the abs ence of anycol l at er al cons equenc es of the cha l l enged i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons , t he C o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e m e rits o f th is a p p e a l. 1 III . F o r t h is re a s o n , w e w ill D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l a s m o o t.

____________