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 10-29-2009 

# P aul P o dhorn Jr

. 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 . 09-3559

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 " P aul P odhorn Jr

. v . J . Gr ondo l sk

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 352. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/352C L D - 021 NOT 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- 3559

___________ P A U L E . P O D H O R N , J R .,

A ppel l ant v . W A R D E N L . G R O N D O L S K Y ; F.C . I. F O R T D IX

____________________________________ 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. 09- cv- 3588) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6( a)

O ct ober22, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober29, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A pp el l ant Paul Po dh orn, a pro se pr i s oner , appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on,W e not e thatPodhor n has fi l ed s ever al othercas es agai ns tA ppel l ees i n the D i s tr i ct 1 C our t , m anyof w hi ch have al r eadybeen c l os ed. See, e. g. Podhor n v. G r ondol s ky , C i v. No . 0 9 - 2 5 3 1 . I n th e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l th a tP o d h o rn f

i l e d i n th i s c a s e , h e d i s c u s s e s c l a i ms w hi ch he di d notr ai s e i n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on and w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notr evi ew i n i t s A ugus t4, 2009 m emora ndum opi ni on. W e w i l l onl yr evi ew thos e cl ai m s r evi ew ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n t he i ns t antcas e. T o the ext entthatPodhor n s eeks r evi ew of a d d iti o n a l cla im s litig a ted in o th e r D istric t C o u rt c a se s, h e m u st f ile p ro p e r se p a ra te n o tice s o f

a p p e a l. P o d h o r n h a s b e e n s e r v i n g h i s f e d e r a l s e n t e n c e a tF . C . I . F o r tD i x i n N e w J e r s e y. 2 2 Podhor n chal l enged the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons ’ ( “B O P”) cal cul at i on of hi s fede r al s ent ence . Podhor n al s o al l eged thatthe B O P i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi m pl ace m enti n a

1 C o m m u n ityC o rre c tio n s C e n ter (“ C C C ” ). F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I . O n A pr i l 21, 2006, Podhor n, w as s ent ence d i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the Southern D i s tr i ctof I l l i noi s t o ei ghty - s even mont hs of i m pr i s onm entforvar i ous f ire a rm s v io latio n s, in c lu d in g se lli n g f ire a rm s w ith o u t m a in tain in g p ro p e r re c o rd s, in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (m ). O n o r a b o u t M a y2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , af ter th e S e v e n th C irc u it 2 C our tof A ppeal s det erm i ned thatPodhor n err oneous l yr ece i ved a s ent ence enhanc ement underU . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) , the D i s tr i ctC our tamended Podhor n’ s t erm of i m pri sonm ent fr om ei gh ty -s even m on ths t o seven tym on ths. Fol l ow i ng hi s r e- s ent enci ng, the B O P r e- cal cul at ed Podhorn’ s s ent ence under appl i cabl e gui del i nes , det erm i ni ng that , bas ed on a s eventy - m onth s ent ence thatbegan on A p ri l 21 , 2 0 0 6 , an d ex clud ing p ri o r cu stod ycre d itan d G o o d T im e C red it s (“G C T ”),3

P o d h o rn w o u ld b e e lig ib le f o r r e le a s e o n F e b ru a ry 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 . Podhor n w as i ni t i al l yaff or ded a pr i orcus t odycr edi tof 637 day s . H ow ever , aft er c o n tac tin g th e S h e rif

f o f Je rse yC o u n ty , Ill in o is, to c o n f irm P o d h o rn ’s p rio r c u sto d yc re d it re latin g to h is s tate in c a rc e ra tio n , the B O P w a s in f o rm e d th a t p rio r c u sto d yc re d it p re v io u slya f

f o rd e d P o d h o rn f

ro m Ja n u a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , thr o u g h F e b ru a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , sh o u ld nothave be en i ncl uded. Podhor n w as r el eas ed fr om s t at e cus t odyon a r ecogni zanc e bond o n J a n u a ry 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d th u s , h e w a s o n ly en title d to a p ri o r c u s to d yc re d it o f 6 0 6 d a y s . A ccor di ngl y , Podhor n’ s r el eas e dat e, noti ncl udi ng G C T , w oul d be J une 24, 2010. O n a s eventy - m onth s ent ence , how ever , Podhor n i s el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve a maxi m um of 274 day s of G C T . T o dat e, he has l os ta t ot al of ni nety - s even da y s of G C T thr ough the B O P ’s d is c ip lin a ry p ro c e s s . T h u s , h is c u rr e n t e a rn e d a n d p roje c te d G C T is 1 9 0 d a y s . Subt r act i ng 190 day s of G C T , earned and pr oj ect ed, fr om hi s ful l t erm dat e of J une 24, 2010, the B O P pr oj ect s thatPodhor n w i l l be r el eas ed on D ece m ber16, 2009. I I . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 2253( a) . A cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi s notr equi r ed t o appea l fr om the deni al of P o d h o rn ’s § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . S e e B u rk e yv . M a rb e rr y , 5 5 6 F .3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e D istric t C o u rt' s le g a l co n c lu sio n s, a n d re v iew its fa ctua l fi n d ing s fo r clear e rror. S ee V eg a v . U n it ed S tat es, 49 3 F . 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).4 I I I . Podhor n chal l enges the B O P’ s cal cul at i on of hi s r el eas e dat e as D ece m ber16, 2 0 0 9 . H e b e liev e s th a t h e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re lea se d o n A u g u st 5 , 2 0 0 9 . W e a g re e w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat P o d h o rn h as n o t dem o n str ated that the B O P ’s ca lculati o n s are in c o rre c t. A s m e n tio n e d e a rlier , the f u ll t e rm e x p ira tio n o f

P o d h o rn ’s s e v e n ty -m o n th s ent ence , noti ncl udi ng pr i orcus t odycr edi torG C T , i s February20, 2012. Podhor n w as a f f o rd e d 6 0 6 d a y s p rio r c u sto d yc re d it, m a k in g th e a c tu a l f u ll t e rm e x p ira tio n d a te o f h is s ent ence J une 24, 2010. Pr ovi ded thathe r ece i ves the r emai ni ng pos s i bl e 190 day s of G C T , h is p rojec ted re lea se d a te is D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 . T h u s, th e B O P h a s p ro p e rly ca lculated P o d h o rn’s li k elyd ate o f re lease as D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 . A lth o u g h P o d h o rn cl ai m s otherw i s e, w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe B O P’ s cal cul at i ons ar e corr ect and thatPodhor n has nots etfor th cr edi bl e evi dence s ugges t i ng otherw i s e. W e a lso a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e B O P h a s n o t w ro n g f u llyf a iled to tr an sfe r P o d h o rn to a C C C . A s an init ial m att er, i t has b ee n estab li sh ed that p ri so n ers have no c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o be as s i gned t o a part i cul ari ns t i tut i on, fac i l i tyor re h a b ili tativ e p ro g ra m . S e e O lim v . W a k in e k o n a , 4 6 1 U .S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 5 (1 9 8 3 ). S im p ly beca us e the B O P has di s cr et i on t o t r ans feroras s i gn an i nm at e t o a C C C does notm ean th a t itis re q u ire d to d o so , p ro v id e d th a t itc o n sid e rs th e a p p ro p ria te f a c to rs. S e e W o o d a ll v . F ed era l B u rea u o f P ri so n s, 4 3 2 F . 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).A s of the dat e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on, Podhor n’ s r eques tt o be 3 tr ans ferr ed t o t he Southern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da r emai ned pendi ng. T he curr ents t atus of P o d g o rn’s tran sfe r req u est i s u n clea r. 5 Pr i ort o Podhor n’ s M ay28, 2009 r e- s ent enci ng, hi s pr oj ect ed r el eas e dat e w as F e b ru a ry2 , 2 0 1 1 . Ac c o r d i n g t o th e BOP , r e v i e w o f a n i n ma t e ’ s e l i g i b i l i tyf o rCCC placem ent typical l yoccu rs seventeen t o n i neteen m on ths pri or t o the i nm at e’s rel ease dat e. A tthe t i m e of Podhorn’ s r e- s ent enci ng, hi s r el eas e dat e w as m or e than ni net een m onths aw ay . T hus , he had y ett o be eva l uat ed forC C C pl ace m ent . W hi l e i ti s true that P o d h o rn ’s r e -se n ten c in g re su lted in h im h a v in g les s th a n tw e lv e m o n th s re m a in in g o n h is s ent ence , and thus enabl ed hi m t o be cons i der ed forC C C pl ace m entatthatt i m e, he had alread yfil ed an ap p li ca ti o n w ith the B O P req u esti n g to b e tran sfe rred to the E astern D i s tr i ctof M i s s our i ( w her e hi s w i fe w as l i vi ng) t o s erve hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. O n or ab o u t Jun e 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , the U n it ed S tat es P rob ati o n O ff ice (“U . S . P . O . ”) f

o r th e E astern D i s tr i ctof M i s s our i deni ed Podhorn’ s tr ans ferr eques ton the gr ounds thatPodhor n’ s w i fe to ld th e U .S .P .O . th a t s h e w o u ld b e re lo c a tin g to th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f F lo ri d a . T hats ame m onth, Podhor n s i gned anothertr ans ferr eques ts eeki ng t o be tr ans ferr ed t o t he Southern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da. T he r eques t , w hi ch Podhorn s i gned, s peci fi cal l ys t at ed thathe w oul d be r evi ew ed forC C C pl ace m entupon appr oval bythe U . S. P. O . i n t he Sout hern D i s tr i ctof Fl or i da. 3 W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatPodhor n’ s cl ai m thatA ppel l ees have i m pr oper l ydeni ed hi m pl ace m enti n a C C C , i s unfounded. Podhor n’ s r eques t s t o betr a n s f

e rr e d t o o th e rj u r i s d i c t i o n s a r e a tth e r o o to f th e d e l a yi n h i s e v a l u a t i o n f o rCCC p l a c e me n t . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e Di s tr i c tCo u rtd i d n o te rri n d e n y i n g th i s c l a i m. A s P o d h o rn ’s a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e T h ird C ir. L A R 2 7 .4 ; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . P o d h o rn ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l is deni ed.

6