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 9-1-2009 

# W arre n B o ard ley v

. J. Grondol sky 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 . 09-1643

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 " W arr e n Bo ar dley v

. J . Gr ondo l sk

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 725. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/725NOT 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. 09- 1643

___________ W A R R E N B O A R D L E Y , A ppel l ant

v. JE F F G R O N D O L S K Y , W A R D E N ; U. S . P AR OL E CO M M I S S I ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- C V - 00983) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember1, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember1, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM W arr en B oar dl eyappea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , w hi ch deni ed hi s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241,

### 2

chal l engi ng a dec i s i on of the U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on. W e w i l l aff i r m , al bei tfor di ffe r entr eas ons . I n r e M us hr oom T r ans p. C o. , I nc. , 382 F. 3d 325, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (co u rto f a p p ea ls m ayaf firm o n d iffe ren t gro u n d s tha n tho se re li ed o n b yd istri ct co u rt ).

I . A s the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s , w e r el at e her e onl ythos e fa ct s es s ent i al t o ourhol di ng. B oar dl eyi s s ervi ng a 47- y ears ent ence forpart i ci pat i on i n a r acke t eer i ng enterpri se, ai ding and abett i ng , R IC O con spi racy , con spi racyt o d i stri bu t e and po sses s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te h e ro in a n d c o c a in e , a n d c o n s p ir a c yto d e f ra u d th e U n ite d S ta te s . H e fi r s tbeca m e el i gi bl e forpar ol e i n 1998. T he U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on ( “the C o m m iss io n ” ) d e ter m in e d to c o n tin u e B o a rd ley t o a 1 5 y e a r re c o n sid e ra tio n in A u g u st, 2013, not i ng, i nt eral i a: [Y ] ou have a dm i t t ed as partof y ourpl eas [s i c] agr eementt o or der i ng 5 a ttem p ted m u rd e rs. In a d d iti o n , the e v id e n c e p ro v id e d b yth e c o u rt su p p o rts that y ou al so ordered t he m urder of 3 ad dit i on al i nd i vidual s. Supp. A pp. at97. I n an admi ni s tr at i ve appe al , B oar dl eyar gued aga i ns tthi s fi ndi ng, s t at i ng thatthe C om m i s s i on s houl d nothave c ons i der ed anyunpr oven al l egat i ons about contr actm ur der . H ow ever , the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d aff i r m ed the dec i s i on, not i ng, among ot herthi ngs , B oar dl ey ’ s “r es pons i bi l i tyforfi ve att empt ed murde r s and thr ee m ur der s . ” Supp. A pp. at99. B oar dl eyfi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n the D i s tr i ct C our ti n 2000, r ai s i ng num er ous i s s ues chal l engi ng the 1998 par ol e dec i s i ons . See

### 3

B oar dl eyv. U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on, M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 99- C V - 00816. T he D i stri ctC ou rti n thatcase di sm i ssed som e of B oardl ey ’s cl ai m s for fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , di s m i s s ed othercl ai m s thati tfound non- cogni zabl e i n a § 2241 pet i t i on, and deni ed other s on t he mer i t s . O n appea l t o ourC our t , B oar dl eyar gued, i nt er al i a, thatthe C om m i s s i on err ed i n r el y i ng on i nform at i on ty i ng hi m t o m ur der s and att empt ed murde r s , depr i vi ng i tof “good c aus e” f orhol di ng hi m bey ond the gui del i ne ra n g e . W e f

o u n d th a t alth o u g h B o a rd ley ha d p re se n ted a f o rm o f th a t ar g u m e n t in h is a p p e a l t o th e N a t i o n a l A p p e a l s B o a r d , h e h a d n o ti n c l u d e d i ti n h i s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n . We sta ted th a t ev e n if

w e c o u ld c o n stru e B o a rd ley’s p e tit io n a s h a v in g ra ise d th e iss u e , it wo u l d n o tp r e v a i l o n th e me r i t s . S e e Bo a r d l e yv . Un i t e d S t a t e s P a r o l e Co mm i s s i o n , C. A. N o . 0 0 -35 2 6 (3d C ir . Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 ) (pe r cu ri am ) (no t prec ed en ti al). Fol l ow i ng s ever al i nt er i m par ol e dec i s i ons notr el evanther e, the C om m i s s i on conduct ed a s t atut oryi nt er i m hear i ng on J une 5, 2006. A tthe hea r i ng, B oar dl ey r eques t ed thatpr ocee di ngs be r eopene d, and pr es ent ed a tr ans cr i ptof a Sept ember2005 depos i t i on gi ven underoath byA ar on H eads peth. H eads peth had pr evi ous l yi m pl i cat ed B oar dl eyi n s ever al m ur der s , buti n the depos i t i on, H eads peth r etr act ed hi s pr evi ous sta tem e n ts, sta tin g th a t h e h a d o n lyto ld f e d e ra l au th o rities w h a t th e yw a n ted to h e a r in or dert o tryt o obt ai n favor abl e tr eatm enti n r egar ds t o char ges pendi ng agai ns thi m . T he H e a ri n g E x a m in e r d e f

e rr e d a f in a l d e c is io n in o rd e r t o c o n s id e r t h e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d . O n Janu ary10 , 20 07 , the E xam i ner r ecom m end ed thatthe C om m i ssi on den ythe requ estI n 2002, the C om m i s s i on had r eopene d and adva nced Boar dl ey ’ s 15- y ear 1 re c o n s id e ra tio n d a te b ys ix m o n th s (t o F e b ru a ry 2 0 1 3 ) f o r s u p e ri o r p ro g ra m a c h ie v e m e n t. Supp. A pp. at106- 07. T he D i s tr i ctC our topi ni on her e quot es the Exam i ner ’ s r ecomm endat i on atl ength, s ee 2 D i s t . C t . O p. at4- 6. 

### 4 t o r eopen a nd cont i nue t o a 15- y earr econs i der at i on hear i ng i n February2013. T he 1 E x a m in e r n o ted th a t f

o u r w itn e ss e s n o t in c lu d in g H e a d sp e th h a d im p lica ted B o a rd ley i n or der i ng m ur der s , and thatH eads peth’ s r eca nt at i on di d notchange the s t at ement s m ade bythe othercooper at i ng w i tnes s es . Supp. A pp. 116- 18. O n J anuary22, 2007, the 2 C o m m is s io n o rd e re d n o c h a n g e in th e 1 5 -ye a r r e c o n s id e ra tio n d a te o f F e b ru a ry 2 0 1 3 . Supp. A pp. 119. T he N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d aff i r m ed on D ece m ber18, 2007, fi ndi ng th a t th e C o m m iss io n re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e p o sitio n a n d p a rt o f a n a f f id a v it B o a rd le yh a d s u b m itte d d id n o t im p a c t th e p re v io u s f in d in g s m a d e b yth e C o m m is s io n . Supp. A pp. 133. B oar dl eythen fi l ed the § 2241 pet i t i on ati s s ue her e, ar gui ng thatthe C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on t o cont i nue hi s i ncar cer at i on i s bas ed on an i nacc ur at e fa ctual pr edi cat e ( i . e. , l i nki ng hi m t o t he contr actm ur derof thr ee i ndi vi dual s ) , and thatthe deci s i on i s arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous and vi ol at es hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s . A ft err ece i vi ng an ans w erand B oar dl ey ’ s r epl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatther e w as a r at i onal b a s is in th e re c o rd f

o r t h e C o m m is s io n ’s d e c is io n , a n d d e n ie d th e § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . B o a rd ley file d a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l.

### 5 II. W e have r ecogni zed “ thatthe abus e- of- the- w r i tdoctr i ne appl i es t o s ect i on 2241 pet i t i ons ; thus , a pet i t i onerm aynotr ai s e new cl ai m s thatcoul d have be en r es ol ved i n a pr evi ous act i on. ” Q ueen v. M i ner , 530 F. 3d 253, 255 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( percur i am); 22 U . S. C . § 2244( a) . B oar dl eyhad an opportuni tyt o chal l enge the C om m i s s i on’ s fi ndi ng th a t h e w a s tie d to th re e m u rd e rs in h is 2 0 0 0 h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n b u t h e f a iled to pr oper l ydo s o. I n or dert o r ai s e the cl ai m i n the pet i t i on ati s s ue her e, B oar dl eyw as r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h ei ther : 1) caus e and pr ej udi ce, i . e. , thats om e obj ect i ve ext ernal fac t ori m peded hi s eff

or t s t o r ai s e the cl ai m ear l i erand thatactual pr ej udi ce r es ul t ed fr om the a ll eg ed erro rs; o r 2) a fu n d am en tal m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce w o u ld resu ltfro m a f ail u re to en tert ain h is cl aim . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . R o b erso n , 1 9 4 F . 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatthe abus e of w r i tdoctr i ne pr ecl udes i nm at es fr om rel i t i gati ng the sam e i ssues i n sub sequen tpeti t i on s orf ro m ra isin g n e w iss u e s th a t co u ld have be en r ai s ed i n an ea r l i erpet i t i on. See M cC l es keyv. Z ant , 499 U . S. 467, 489 ( 1991) ( “O urr ece ntdeci s i ons confi r m thata pet i t i onercan a bus e the w r i tbyr ai s i ng a cl ai m i n a su b seq u en t petit ion that h e c o u ld h av e ra ised in h is fir st, reg ard less o f w h ethe r th e f ail u re t o r ai s e i tear l i ers t emm ed fr om a del i ber at e choi ce. ”) . B oar dl eyhas been on not i ce s i nce the fi r s tC om m i s s i on deci s i on i n 1998 thatthe C om m i s s i on had cons i der ed evi dence t y i ng h im to th re e m u rd e rs in d e n y in g h im p a ro le, a n d h e th u s c o u ld h a v e ra ise d th e c laim in h is e a rl ie r p e titio n . B o a rd le ym ig h t a rg u e th a t th e f a c tu a l p re d ic a te o f

h is c la im , i.e .,

### 6

H eads peth’ s depos i t i on, w as notavai l abl e atthe t i m e of hi s ear l i erpet i t i on, buthe has not ex p lai n ed w h yh e c o u ld n o t hav e re q u ested H ea d sp eth’s testi m o n yea rl ier. A s s um i ng, ar guendo, thatB oar dl eycoul d s how thats om e obj ect i ve ext ernal fac t or i m peded hi s eff

or t s t o r ai s e the cl ai m ear l i er , he ca nnots how pr ej udi ce. A s not ed above , we s t a t e d i n o u ro p i n i o n c o n c e r n i n g Bo a r d l e y ’ s e a r l i e rh a b e a s p e t i t i o n th a ts u c h a c l a i m, if p ro p e rlyra ise d , w o u ld b e w ith o u t m e rit: I n the s ent enci ng tr ans cr i pt , w hi ch w as r efe r ence d bythe hea r i ng exami ner s , B oar dl ey ’ s att orneys t at ed thathi s cl i enthad admi t t ed c u lp a b ili tyf

o r th e a ttem p ted m u rd e rs, if n o t th e c o n tra c t m u rd e rs. S e e S e n t. T r . , 9; s ee a l s o 28 C . F. R . § 2. 20, Sever i tyI ndex, C hapt er1, ¶ 102 ( s t at i ng th a t a tte m p te d c ri m e s a re to b e tr e a te d “ a s th e o f f e n s e a tte m p te d ” ). M o r e o v e r , th e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r tr e c o g n i z e d th a tBo a r d l e yh a d s o me c o n sp ira to ria l li a b ili tyf o r th e c o n tra c t m u rd e rs c o m m itt e d b yh is cocons pi r at or s . See Sent . T r . , 10; s ee a l s o 28 C . F. R . § 2. 20, Sever i tyI ndex, C hapt er13( A ) ( 4) ( not i ng thata pr i s oneri s t o be hel d r es pons i bl e forthe for es eea bl e ac t s of coc ons pi r at or s ) . T hus , ther e w as a r at i onal bas i s i n the r ecor d forthe conc l us i on thatB oar dl eyw as “r es pons i b[l e] forfi ve att empt ed murde r s and thr ee mur der s . ” See A ppeal s B oar d' s O r der , 1. B o ard leyv . U n it ed S tat es P aro le C o m m issi o n , C . A . N o . 0 0 -35 2 6 , sli p o p . at 7-8 (3d C ir . J une 13, 2001) . W e furthernot ed thatthe C om m i s s i on’ s s ever i tyi ndex r at i ng r el i ed “l ar gel yon B oar dl ey ’ s ow n admi s s i ons , ” r atherthan thos e of hi s codef endant s . I d. at8, n. 4. T he cont ent s of H eads peth’ s depos i t i on do notnegat e the otherevi dence r el i ed on by the C om m i s s i on; thus , B oar dl eyw oul d notbe pr ej udi ced e ven i f the C om m i s s i on had fai l ed t o cons i derthe H eads peth depos i t i on. U ni t ed St at es v. Fr ady , 456 U . S. 152, 170 ( 1982) ( t o s how pr ej udi ce, pet i t i onerm us ts how thaterr or s “w or ked t o hi s actual and s ubs t ant i al di s advant age, i nfec t i ng hi s ent i r e [pr ocee di ng] w i th err orof cons t i tut i onalT he M ot i on byA ppel l ees forl eave t o fi l e i t s br i ef a nd s uppl ement al appendi x under 3 s eal i s gr ant ed. 

### 7 d im en sion s. ”). L i kew i s e, B oar dl eyhas fai l ed t o s how thata funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w oul d occuri f hi s pet i t i on i s di s m i s s ed as an abus e of the w r i t . A fundament al m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e m a ya rise w h e re “ a p e tit io n e r su p p lem e n ts a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im w i th a col or abl e s how i ng of fa ctual i nnocenc e. ” I d. at495 ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . B oar dl eyhas notpr es ent ed a c ol or abl e cl ai m of fa ctual i nnocenc e. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of B oar dl ey ’ s § 2241 pet i t i on. 3