2005 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 7-13-2005 

# F ell v . Z e nk 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 . 04-3002

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_2005

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 2005 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 " F ell v . Z e nk " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 853. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/853NOT 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 . 04- 3002

________________ THO M AS E. FELL , A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AE L Z E NK

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 01- cv- 00266) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

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

J U L Y 1, 2005 Bef

or e : RE N D ELL , A M BR O A N D FU EN TES, CI RC U I T J U D G ES

( Fi l ed : J ul y13, 2005)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AM T h is is a n a p p e a l b yT h o m a s E . F e ll fro m a n o rd e r d ism iss in g h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . F e l l wa s c o n v i c t e d i n 1 9 8 9 o f f e l o n ymu r d e r , r o b b e ry , a n d s o d o my fol l ow i ng a gene r al courtm art i al , and he i s s ervi ng a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entof 25T he A r m yC our tof M i l i t aryR evi ew i s now know n as the A r m yC our tof C r i m i nal

A pp eal s. W e c o n clud e tha t w e h av e jurisdicti o n . F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) pr ovi des thata not i ce of appea l be fi l ed w i thi n 60 day s aft erentryof j udgm ent w her e the U ni t ed St at es i s a party . J udgm entw as ent er ed i n thi s cas e on J anuary27, 2 0 0 4 . F e ll’ s n o tic e o f

a p p e a l f ile d o n J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 w a s f ile d s e v e ra l m o n th s to o la te . A tim e lyf iled R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n w ill to ll th e tim e f o r ta k in g a n a p p e a l, F e d . R . A p p . P ro . 4 (a )(4 )(A )(iv ), b u t F e ll’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n w a s n o t f iled u n til February23, 2004. Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) pr ovi des thats uch a mot i on be fi l ed no l at erthan 10 day s aft erentryof the j udgm ent , ori n thi s cas e byFebruary10, 2004. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed Fel l an ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e hi s m ot i on for re c o n sid e ra tio n , b u t a d istric t co u rt m a yn o t w a iv e o r e x ten d th e tim e p e rio d in w h ich to fi l e a Rul e 59( e) m ot i on. de l a Fuent e v. C entr al E l ectr i c C o- op, I nc. , 703 F. 2d 63, 65 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). S e e a ls o F e d . R . C iv . P ro . 6 (b ). T h e C o u rt ’s o rd e r d o in g s o th u s is a n u llity. H o w e v e r, a p riso n e r’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n w ill b e d e e m e d f iled a t th e tim e it i s d eli v ere d to p ri so n au tho ri ti es f o r m ail ing . S m ith v . E v an s, 8 5 3 F . 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 1 (3d C ir . 1988) . W e fi nd thatFel l del i ver ed hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on t o pr i s on author i t i es for m a ili n g o n F e b ru a ry8 , 2 0 0 4 . W e b a se o u r c o n c lu sio n o n th e f a c t th a t h is a f

f id a v it i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on i s dat ed February7. T he mot i on for re c o n s id e ra tio n in c lu d e s a c e rt if ic a te o f s e rv ic e in d ic a tin g a m a ilin g d a te o f “ J a n u a ry 8 , ” w h ich w e d o n o t b e liev e w a s th e c o rre c t m a ili n g d a te; h o w e v e r, F e ll co u ld h a v e m e re ly m i s s t at ed the mont h. B eca us e w e fi nd thatthe mot i on w as m ai l ed on February8, i tw as t i m el yunderSm i th v. E vans , and t ol l ed the t i m e fort aki ng an appe al . T he or derdeny i ng 2 y ear s . H i s convi ct i on w as aff i r m ed bythe A r m yC our tof M i l i t aryR evi ew , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Fel l , 33 M . J . 628 ( A . C . M . R . 1991) , and r evi ew w as deni ed bythe C our tof 1 M i l i t aryA ppeal s , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Fel l , 36 M . J . 40 ( C . M . A . 1992) . Fel l , w ho w as at the tim e im p ri so n ed at th e F ed era l C o rrecti o n al Insti tuti o n at A ll en w o o d in W h it e D ee r, P e n n sy lv a n ia, f

iled a p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 in U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e M idd le D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia. T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed hi s pet i t i on and mot i on forr econs i der at i on, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. W e w i l l aff

i r m . T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our t s have j ur i s di ct i on under28 2the mot i on forr econs i der at i on w as ent er ed on the docke ton M ay26, 2004. T he not i ce of

ap p ea l fi led o n Ju ly1 5 , 2 0 0 4 w as f il ed w ith in 6 0 d ay s o f th at ord er. S ect i on 86 6(c) provides:

In a c a se re f

e rre d to it, th e C o u rt o f

C rim in a l A p p e a ls m a y.. . af f irm o n ly s uch fi ndi ngs of gui l ty , and the s ent ence ors uch partoramount of the s ent ence , as i tfi nds corr ecti n l aw and fa ctand det erm i nes , on the bas i s of the ent i r e r ecor d, s houl d be appr oved. I n cons i der i ng the r ecor d, i tm ay w ei gh the evi dence , j udge the cr edi bi l i tyof w i tnes s es , and det erm i ne co n tr o v erted q u esti o n s o f f ac t, rec o g n izi n g that the tri al co u rtsaw an d h ea rd the w i tnesses. 3 U . S. C . § 2241 overhabea s corpus pet i t i ons fi l ed byper s ons confi ned pur s uantt o a s ent ence r ece i ved fr om a mi l i t arycourt . H ow ever , abs enta cha l l enge t o the co n sti tuti o n ali tyo f th e statute u n d er w h ich th e p eti ti o n er w as c o n v ict ed , a c o u rt ’s i n q u iry in a m ilita ry h a b e a s c a s e m a yn o t g o f u rt h e r t h a n its in q u ir yin a s ta te h a b e a s c a s e . B r os i us v. W ar den, U . S. Peni t ent i ary , L ew i s bur g, PA , 278 F. 3d 239, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng B urns v. W i l s on, 346 U . S. 137, 142 ( 1953) ( "I n m i l i t aryhabea s corpus cas es , even m o re th a n in sta te h a b e a s c o rp u s c a se s, it w o u ld b e in d isre g a rd o f th e sta tu to rysc h e m e if th e f e d e ra l c iv il c o u rt s f

a ile d to ta k e a c c o u n t o f th e p ri o r p ro c e e d in g s .” )) . W e t hu s have a ssum ed, for the sake of argu m ent, that 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d) appli es, see B rosiu s v . W ard en , U . S . P en it en ti ary , L ew isbu rg, P a., 2 7 8 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) a n d w e m a yn o t g ra n t re lief u n les s th e A rm yC o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o n th e m e rits r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, clea rl yestab li sh ed fe d era l l aw . Id. S u ch a ru le m ak es se n se b ec au se th e A rm yC o u rt ’s rev iew is byn o m ea n s a p erf u n ctoryo n e. S ee 1 0 U . S . C . § 8 6 6 (c). 31 0 U . S . C . § 8 6 6 (c) (W est 1 9 9 8 ). 4

O n di r ectappea l t o t he A r m yC our tof M i l i t aryR evi ew , Fel l ar gued thatthe m i l i t aryj udge err ed bynotgi vi ng panel m ember s the fe l onym ur deri ns truct i on he r eques t ed, s peci fi cal l y , thathe musthave ha d the i nt entt o comm i tthe under l y i ng fel ony atthe t i m e of the ac t i ons thatcaus ed the vi ct i m ’ s death, and bygi vi ng a mi s t ake i n fac t in stru c tio n th a t w a s d e f e c tiv e . H e a lso a rg u e d th a t th e m ili tar yju d g e e rre d in n o t p ro p e rly a c c o u n tin g f

o r th e p a n e l m e m b e rs a s re q u ire d b yR u le f o r C o u rts-M a rtial § 8 1 3 (a ), an d in deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora fi ndi ng of notgui l tyof fe l onym ur der . L as t , he ar gued thatt he e v id e n c e w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e f

e lo n ym u rd e r, r o b b e ry, a n d s o d o m yc o n v ic tio n s . A dd i t i on al l y , F el l rai sed t w o is sues personal l y , see U nit ed S t at es v. G rost efon , 12 M . J. 4 3 1 , 4 3 6 - 3 7 ( C. M . A. 1 9 8 2 ) ( p r o v i d i n g f o rme a n s t o r a i s e i s s u e s a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l d e e ms u n w o rth y ), th a t h e w a s d e n ied a f a ir trial b e c a u se th e m ili tar yju d g e re f e rre d to h is s t at ementas a conf

es s i on, and hi s s ent ence w as exce s s i ve. In a th o ro u g h o p in io n a f f irm in g , the A rm yC o u rt f o u n d th a t th e m ili tar yju d g e d id e rr w ith re sp e c t to th e m ista k e o f f a c t in stru c tio n ; h o w e v e r, th e c o u rt ru led th a t F e ll s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the err or . Fel l , 33 M . J . at632. T he A r m yC our tfound no err orw i th r es pectt o t he mi l i t aryj udge’ s r efus al t o gi ve the fe l onym ur deri ns truct i on r eques t ed bythe def

ens e, becaus e the i nt entt o s t eal r equi r ed i n r obberym aybe form ed aft erthe comm i s s i on of an a s s aul tw hi ch r ender s the vi ct i m hel pl es s . I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. W as hi ngt on, 12 M . J . 1036 ( A . C . M . R . 1982) ) . T he A r m yC our tdi d concl udeIn a d d iti o n , F e ll am e n d e d h is h a b e a s p e tit io n to c h a llen g e th e U n ited S tate s P a ro le

C om m i s s i on’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve hi m m eani ngful and annua l r evi ew s , and the B ur eau of P riso n s’ f

a ilu re to re -c re d it h im w ith c e rta in f o rf e ited g o o d tim e c re d its. T h e M a g istra te J udge conc l uded, and the D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed, thatthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eypr evi ous l yhad addr es s ed the par ol e cl ai m i n a s epar at e ac t i on and pr oper l yr ej ect ed i t . T he s ent ence comput at i on cl ai m coul d notbe pr es s ed aga i ns tt he B ureau o f P ri sons, becau se onlythe C om m and ant, pu rs uan tt o regulat i on , can rest ore l ost g o o d tim e f

o r m ili tar yp riso n e rs in th e c u sto d yo f th e B u re a u o f

P riso n s. F e ll’s re m e d y , if any , w oul d l i e w i th t he D epart m entof the A r m y . Fel l has notpur s ued thes e i s s ues conce rni ng par ol e mat t er s and s ent ence cal cul at i on on appea l , and w e thus w i l l not ad d ress the m fu rth er. 5 thatthe mi l i t aryj udge err ed byfai l i ng t o acc ountforal l panel m ember s as r equi r ed by R . C . M . 813( a) ( 4) ; how ever , the err orw as notj ur i s di ct i onal i n natur e and Fel l s uffe r ed no prej ud i ce as a res ult . Id. at63 3-34. Th e A rm yC ou rtrej ect ed the r em ai ning cl ai m s, i n c l u d i n g th o s e F e l l r a i s e d p e r s o n a l l y. A conci s e l i s tof Fel l ’ s num er ous fede r al ci vi l habea s cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng s ever al t hat w er e notr ai s ed on di r ectappea l , appea r s i n the appe l l ee’ s br i ef a tpp. 11- 13. T he M agi s tr at e J udge, i n a R eportand R ecomm endat i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed, concl uded thatFel l had r ece i ved “f ul l and fa i rcons i der at i on” of a l l i s s ues r ai s ed i n the m i l i t arycourt s , and he thus w as notent i t l ed t o habea s r el i ef i n a ci vi l court . C l ai m s not r ai s ed i n the mi l i t arycourt s w er e w ai ved. 4 Fel l m oved forr econs i der at i on, cont endi ng, among ot herthi ngs , thatthe D i s tr i ct C our ti ncorr ect l yconcl uded thathe had notr ai s ed fourof hi s habea s cl ai m s i n the m i l i t arycourt s . T hos e cl ai m s w er e thatthe St aff J udge A dvocat e pr ovi ded the conve ni ng a u th o rityw ith a d v ice th a t w a s m a ter iallyin a c c u ra te in v io latio n o f h is d u tyu n d e r A rticle6

34, 10 U . S. C . § 834, he r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , the mi l i t aryj udge p re sid in g a t h is c o u rt m a rtial w a s b ias e d , an d th e p ro se c u to r c o m m itt e d m isc o n d u c t in m a k in g a n in f

la m m a to ry a rg u m e n t. In i t s ori ginal order the D i stri ctC ou rtdeterm i ned that i tcou l d n ot address these issue s b ec au se F ell d id n o t r aise the m o n d ir ec t app ea l t o the A rm yC o u rto f M il it ary R e v iew . O n re c o n sid e ra tio n , the D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t F e ll rais e d th e se iss u e s in s ubs equentm i l i t aryhabea s pet i t i ons t o the A r m yC our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s and the C our tof A ppeal s t o t he A r m ed For ces . A l though the D i s tr i ctC our ts t i l l bel i eved thatt he i s s u e s we r e wa i v e d , i th e l d i n th e a l t e rn a t i v e th a tF e l l h a d f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a tth e c l a i ms w er e notful l yand fa i r l ycons i der ed bythe mi l i t arycourt s , as r equi r ed byB urns v. W i l s on, 346 U . S. 137, 142 ( 1953) . B eca us e he f ai l ed t o m ake the r equi r ed s how i ng, re lie f in a c iv il c o u rt w a s u n a v a ila b le to h im . O n appea l , Fel l appea r s t o r ai s e the s ame ar gum ent s he r ai s ed i n hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. T urni ng t o t hos e ar gum ent s , the r ecor d s how s thatFel l r ai s ed al l butt he fi r s tof them i n a pr o s e Pet i t i on forE xtr aor di naryR el i ef i n the N atur e of a W r i tof H a b e a s C o rp u s w ith th e A rm yC o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls. H e ra ise d th e f irst a rg u m e n t in a pet i t i on t o t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe A r m ed For ces . H e al s o uns ucce s s ful l yappea l ed thes e dec i s i ons . A l though w e mi ghtagr ee a s a gene r al m att erthat , i f an i s s ue w as not r ai s ed atanyt i m e i n t he mi l i t arycourt s , w e maynotr evi ew i t , W at s on v. M cC ot t er , 782 F .2 d 1 4 3 , 1 5 4 (1 0 C ir. 1 9 8 6 ), th e iss u e p re se n ted b yth is a p p e a l, w h e th e r F e ll p ro p e rly thT he l egal s igni f i cance of the fa ct s w as , of cour s e, di s put ed. 7 re so rte d to m ili tar yh a b e a s p e tit io n s to ra ise c laim s th a t w e re n o t ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, is n o t th a t is s u e . Fel l adequa t el yes t abl i s hed thathi s fourar gum ent s w er e r ai s ed i n pet i t i ons for extr aor di naryr el i ef f

i l ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es A r m yC our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s and the U nit ed S t at es C ou rtof A pp eal s for the A rm ed F orces. W e are not per suaded that these ar gum ent s w oul d nothave be en gi ven due c ons i der at i on s uch thatw e w oul d hol d them w ai ved. See, e. g. , D i az v. N avyJ udge A dvocat e G ener al , 59 M . J . 34, 37 ( C . A . A . F. 2003) ( gr ant i ng pet i t i on forextr aor di naryr el i ef, and r emandi ng t o N avy - M ar i ne C orps C our tof C ri m inal A p p ea ls, w h ere d elayin d ir ec t app ea l j eo p ard ized d u e p roc ess g u ara n tee); U ni t ed St at es v. M urphy , 50 M . J . 4, 5 ( C . A . A . F. 1998) ( di s cus s i ng opennes s t o col l at er al chal l enges bas ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el notw i ths t andi ng abs ence of § 2255 p roc ed u re). H ow ever , even a s s um i ng thatthes e ar gum ent s ar e notw ai ved, w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthattheydo notpr ovi de a ba s i s forhabea s r el i ef i n a ci vi l court . W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d, and w e conc l ude thatFel l ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e not vi ol at ed. See B r os i us , 278 F. 3d at244 ( i n B urns “a maj or i tyof the C our t. . . appl i ed a defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew t o t he cl ai m s that , on the undi s put ed fa ct s , the habe as p e tit io n e rs’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w e re v io late d ” ). T h e e ss e n tial f a c ts h e re a re n o t in di s put e. Fel l had cons ens ual s ex w i th an i ndi vi dual he bel i eved t o be a w om an, and upon

58

di s cover i ng thatthe i ndi vi dual w as a man, beathi m , br oke hi s neck, r obbed hi m aft er r ender i ng hi m hel pl es s , and l efthi m al one and w i thoutas s i s t ance . T he man l at erdi ed of his i njur i es. C l ai m s of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct ul t i m at el yturn on actual pr ej udi ce a nd the r el i abi l i tyof the ver di ct . See U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui ck, 59 M . J . 383, 387 ( C . A . A . F. 2004) ( addr es s i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M eek, 44 M . J . 1, 5 ( C . A . A . F. 1996) ( addr es s i ng cl ai m s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct ) . T he fi ndi ng of gui l tyi n Fel l ’ s cas e w as r el i abl e. I n addi t i on, ther e i s no evi dence on t hi s r ecor d t o i ndi cat e thatthe mi l i t aryj udge w as bi as ed, thatt he St aff J udge A dvocat e mi s r epr es ent ed t o the conve ni ng offi certhe A r t i cl e 32 i nves t i gat i ng offi cer ’ s concl us i on thatthe evi dence poi nt ed t o vol unt arym ans l aught err atherthan fel onym ur der , orthatthe def ens e w as w i l l i ng t o pl ead gui l tyt o fel onym ur der . T he deci s i on of the mi l i t arycourt s t o denyr el i ef on thes e cl ai m s i s thus notcontr aryt o fede r al la w n o r a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f it. I t is e n title d to d e f

e re n c e , c f. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( d) ( 1) , and ther e i s no bas i s forgr ant i ng habeas r el i ef he r e. T o t he ext entthatFel l al s o chal l enges on appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on th a th e r e c e i v e d “ f

u l l a n d f a i rc o n s i d e r a t i o n ” o f

a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d o n d i r e c ta p p e a l , we a g r e e wi th th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , f o rth e r e a s o n s g i v e n b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , th a tth e Ar my C our t ’ s w r i t t en opi ni on es t abl i s hes thati tundert ook an ana l y s i s of the r el evantl aw and deci ded the i s s ues i n acc or dance w i th m i l i t arypr ece dent . See D i s tr i ctC our tO pi ni on, at7 -1 0 ; O rd e r D e n y in g M o tio n f o r R e c o n sid e ra tio n , at 4 -5 n .2 . T h a t d e c isio n is e n tit led to d e f e re n c e , cf. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ), an d d o e s n o t p ro v id e a b a sis f o r a c iv il co u rt to g ra n t habeas r el i ef. W e w i l l aff

i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng the habe as pet i t i on and m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.

9