2008 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 8-6-2008 

# Frede rick H egney v

. Kare n H ogs te n 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 . 08-1589

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_2008

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 2008 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 r e de rick H e gney v

. K ar e n H o gs t e n" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 703. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/703NOT 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- 1589

___________ F RE DE RI CK HE GNE Y,

A ppel l ant v . K A R E N H O G ST E N , W ar den, FC I A l l enw ood;

T HOMAS M AR I NO

____________________________________ 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 M id d le 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- 0271 (H o n o rab le C h ri stop h er C . C o n n er)

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

A ugus t1, 2008 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, H A R D IM A N and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2008 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. A ppel l antFr eder i ck H egney , a fe der al pr i s oneri ncar cer at ed atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atA l l enw ood, W hi t e D eer , Penns y l vani a, w as arr es t ed on Sept ember5, 1986, and i ndi ct ed i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s t r i ct2

of Fl or i da atD . C . C r i m . N o. 86- cr - 06122 on one countof R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i ons ( “R I C O ”) i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1962( c) , one countof cons pi r acyt o comm i tR I C O i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1962( d) , and thr ee c ount s of di s tr i but i on of coc ai ne i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . W hi l e i n j ai l he w as i n d i c t e d i n th e s a me c o u r to n , a n d a j u rys u b s e q u e n t l yf o u n d h i m g u i l tyo f

( a tD. C. Cr i m. N o . 8 7 -c r- 0 6 1 2 0 ), p o s s e s s io n o f f ir e a rm s b ya c o n v ic te d f e lo n in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 0 2 (a )( 1 ) ( re p e a le d ). O n O c to b e r 3 0 , 1 9 8 7 , H e g n e yw a s s e n ten c e d in th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f F lo rid a to a tw o -y e a r te rm o f

im p riso n m e n t o n th e w e a p o n s c o n v ictio n . A f ter a ju ryf

o u n d h im gui l tyon al l fi ve R I C O count s , he w as s ent ence d on O ct ober31, 1989 ( al s o i n the S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f

F lo ri d a ) t o a te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t o f

2 0 y e a rs o n th e R IC O c o u n t, a cons ecut i ve t erm of 20 y ear s on t he cons pi r acycount , a cons ecut i ve t erm of 10 y ear s on the f ir st distri b u ti o n o f c o ca ine c o u n t, an d a c o n cu rren t t erm o f im p ri so n m en t of 1 5 y ea rs o n ea ch o f th e re m ainin g d istri b u ti o n o f c o ca ine c o u n ts, fo r a total of 5 0 y ea rs i m pri sonm ent on t he R IC O cou nts . T he B ur eau of

Pr i s ons aw ar ded “pr i orcus t odycr edi t ” t o H egneyas fol l ow s . T he peri od from S eptem ber 5, 19 86 throug h O ct ob er 29, 19 87 w as appli ed to hi s fi rs t s ent ence , the tw o- y earw eapons vi ol at i on t erm . T hi s per i od r epr es ent ed the t i m e H egney s penti n cus t odyfr om the dat e of hi s arr es tt o the daypr i ort o hi s s ent enci ng on the w eapons convi ct i on. W i th t he ca l cul at i on of s t atut orygood t i m e, thi s s ent ence expi r ed on3

Ap r i l 1 3 , 1 9 8 8 , b u tHe g n e yr e ma i n e d i n c u s t o d yp e n d i n g d i s p o s i t i o n o f th e RI CO char ges . T he B O P gave H egneypr i orcus t odycr edi tt ow ar d the R I C O s ent ence forthe per i od fr om A pr i l 13, 1988 thr ough O ct ober30, 1989, orthe t i m e he s penti n cus t ody f ro m th e e x p ira tio n o f

h is s e n ten c e o n th e w e a p o n s c o n v ictio n to th e d a yp rio r to h is s e n te n c in g o n th e R IC O c o n v ic tio n s . W i th the appl i cat i on of al l avai l abl e s t atut orygood t i m e, H egney ’ s pr oj ect ed re lea se d a te f

ro m th e R IC O se n ten c e is M a rc h 5 , 2 0 1 7 . T h e U n ited S tate s P a ro le Co mm i s s i o n c o n d u c t e d a n i n i t i a l p a r o l e h e a r i n g f o rHe g n e yo n S e p t e mb e r2 9 , 1 9 9 8 . At th a th e a r i n g , th e Co mmi s s i o n r a t e d th e s e v e r i tyo f h i s o f f e n s e a t“ 8 , ” a n d g a v e h i m a Sal i entFact orScor e ( “SFS”) of “3, ” fi ndi ng thatthe r acke t eer i ng act i vi tyhe had part i ci pat ed i n as a mem berof the O ut l aw M ot or cy cl e C l ub i ncl uded fourm ur der s and th e a ttem p ted m u rd e r o f a f if th in d iv id u a l w h o su rv iv e d to tes tifya g a in st h im . T h is y i el ded a pa r ol e gui del i ne r ange of 180+ m onths . I n a N ot i ce of A ct i on dat ed O ct ober20, 1998, the C om m i s s i on or der ed thatH egneycont i nue t o s erve t o a 15 y earr econs i der at i on h e a rin g in S e p tem b e r 2 0 1 3 . T h is d e c isio n w a s a f f irm e d o n a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l, w ith the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d, on M ar ch 5, 1999, concl udi ng thatthe SFS had been corr ect l ycal cul at ed. Speci fi cal l y , contr aryt o H egney ’ s as s ert i ons , he di d nothave a c o m m itm e n t-f

re e p e rio d f

o r th re e y e a rs p rio r to th e c u rre n t o f f e n se a n d h e w a s o n p a ro le atthe t i m e of the off

ens e.4

T he C om m i s s i on conduct ed a s t atut oryi nt er i m hear i ng forH egneyon A ugus t17, 2005. Subse quentt o t hi s hear i ng, i n a N ot i ce of A ct i on dat ed Sept ember2, 2005, the C om m i s s i on or der ed no cha nge i n i t s pr evi ous or derthatH egneycont i nue t o s erve t o a 15 y e a r r e c o n s id e ra tio n h e a ri n g . H e g n e yd id n o t a d m in is tr a tiv e ly ap p e a l th is d e c is io n . I ns t ead, he fi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus , 28 U . S. C . § 2241, i n U ni t ed S t a t e s Di s tr i c tCo u r tf

o rth e M i d d l e Di s tr i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a , a l l e g i n g th a tth e BO P im p ro p e rlyc a lcu late d h is p rio r c u sto d yc re d it, a n d th e P a ro le C o m m iss io n im p ro p e rly c o n s id e re d h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e q u a d ru p le h o m ic id e a n d in c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d h is S F S . H e al s o appea r ed t o cont end thatthe ex p o st fa c to cl aus e w as vi ol at ed bythe C om m i s s i on ext endi ng hi s i ncar cer at i on bey ond hi s gui del i ne r ange. T he governm entans w er ed the p e tit io n , co n ten d in g th a t th e se n ten c e c a lcu latio n c laim lac k e d m e rit an d th e se v e rity rati n g claim s ag ains t th e P aro le C o m m issi o n w ere n o t exh au sted d u e to H eg n ey ’s fa il u re t o appea l the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on bas ed on the A ugus t17, 2005 hear i ng t o the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d. In a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n Ja n u a ry3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e f irst c laim on the mer i t s , and di s m i s s ed the Par ol e C om m i s s i on/ SFS and s ever i tyr at i ng cl ai m s for fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . A s t o the s ent ence cal cul at i on cl ai m , the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned that18 U . S. C . § 3568 ( r epea l ed N ovember1, 1987) governed the cal cul at i on of fe der al s ent ence s i m pos ed forcr i m es comm i t t ed pr i ort o N ovember1, 1987, and thats t atut e pr ovi ded:5

T h e se n ten c e o f

im p riso n m e n t o f

a n yp e rso n c o n v icte d o f a n o f f e n se sh a ll comm ence t o run fr om the dat e on w hi ch s uch per s on i s r ece i ved atthe peni t ent i ary , r eform at ory , orj ai l fors ervi ce of s uch s ent ence . T he A t t orney G ener al s hal l gi ve anys uch per s on cr edi tt ow ar d s ervi ce of hi s s ent ence for anyday s s penti n cus t odyi n connec t i on w i th the off ens e oract s forw hi ch s ent ence w as i m pos ed. 18 U . S. C . § 3568 ( r epea l ed) . Pur s uantt o thi s s t atut e, the B O P had pr om ul gat ed Pr ogr am St at ement5880. 30, Sent ence C om put at i on M anual / O l d L aw , C hapt erV I , Pages 3 and 4, w h ich f u rth e r p ro v id e d th a t: ( 2) Pr e- s ent ence t i m e cr edi ts hal l notbe gi ven foranyt i m e s pents ervi ng anothers ent ence , ei therfede r al ornon- fede r al , exce ptthatpr e- s ent ence t i m e cr edi tand t i m e s pents ervi ng a s ent ence thati s vaca t ed s hal l be c r e d i t a b l e t o wa r d a n o th e rs e n t e n c e i f th e l a t e rs e n t e n c e i s b a s e d o n th e s a me char ges thatl ed t o t he pr i or , vaca t ed s ent ence . P. S. 5880. 30. H egneyr ece i ved cr edi ton ei therthe tw o- y earw eapons s ent ence orthe 50- y earR I C O s ent ence foreverydayhe w as i n pr i orcus t ody , thati s , s i nce he w as arr es t ed on Sept ember5, 1986. H e w as thus notent i t l ed underthe s t atut e and the Pr ogr am S ta te m e n t to d o u b le c re d it o n th e R IC O s e n te n c e . W i th r es pectt o t he s ever i tyand SFS cl ai m s agai ns tthe Par ol e C om m i s s i on, the D istric t C o u rt a g re e d w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t H e g n e yc o m m itt e d a p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt thatpr ecl uded cons i der at i on of the cl ai m s on the mer i t s , s ee M os cat o v. Fed. B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 98 F. 3d 757 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , w hen he f ai l ed t o appea l the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on relati n g to the A u g u st 17 , 2 0 0 5 h ea ri n g to the N ati o n al A p p ea ls B o ard . T h e c o u rt r ej ect ed H egney ’ s cont ent i on thathi s pr i orappea l s uffi ced t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , beca us e more than fi ve y ear s had el aps ed s i nce the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d hadT h e Di s tr i c tCo u r ti n th e a l t e r n a t i v e r e a c h e d th e me r i t s o f th e c l a i ms , i s s u e s we 1 decli ne to add res s. 6 re v iew e d h is c a se . M o re o v e r, H e g n e yc o u ld n o t sh o w c a u se f o r h is f a ilu re to tim e ly appea l t o the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d. 1 H egneyappea l s . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ' s concl us i on of l aw thatH egneycoul d not be af for ded anyr el i ef. See, e. g. , Fow l erv. U . S. Par ol e C om m ’ n, 94 F. 3d 835, 837 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ; B ar den v. K eohane , 921 F. 2d 476, 479 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . W e fi nd no bas i s for di s agr eei ng w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatform er18 U . S. C . § 3568 and Pr ogr am S t at ement5880. 30 pr ohi bi tthe B O P fr om cr edi t i ng a pr i s oner ’ s s ent ence for t i m e s penti n cus t odythathas al r eadybeen c r edi t ed t o anotherfede r al s ent ence . T he B O P ’s in terp re tatio n in P ro g ra m S tate m e n t 5 8 8 0 .3 0 o f f o rm e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 8 is cons i s t entw i th t he s ucce s s ors t atut e ena ct ed byC ongr es s , 18 U . S. C . § 3585( b) , w hi ch e xp r e s s l ypr oh i bi t s the do ub l e c r e di tH e gn e ys e e ks , s e e U ni t e d St a t e s v. W i l s on , 50 3 U. S. 3 2 9 , 3 3 7 (1 9 9 2 ). W e a lso a g re e , af

ter c a re f u l re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , tha t H e g n e yw a s re q u ire d to a p p e a l th e N o tice o f

A c tio n re latin g to th e A u g u st 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 in ter im h e a rin g d e c isio n to th e N a tio n a l A p p e a ls B o a rd , an d h a v in g n o t d o n e so , h e f a iled to e x h a u st h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es r egar di ng the SFS and se ver i tyr at i ng as r equi r ed bef or e he may b ri n g s u it. S e e M o s c a to , 9 8 F .3 d a t 7 6 1 . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e “ b e n e f its o f e x h a u s tio n ,”T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notaddr es s the ex p o st fa c to i s s ue. 2 7 s ee J ones v. B ock, 549 U . S. 199, ___, 127 S. C t . 910, 923 ( 2007) , i ncl udi ng al l ow i ng fe d era l paro le au tho ri ti es to ad d ress c o m p lai n ts ab o u t th e p rog ram theyad m inist er b ef o re b e in g su b

jec t to su it, re d u c in g lit ig a tio n to th e e x ten t th a t co m p lain ts a re sa tisf a c to rily r e s o l v e d , a n d i mp r o v i n g l i t i g a t i o n wh e n i to c c u r s b yc r e a t i n g a u s e f u l r e c o r d f

o rr e v i e w, i d. , ar e bes ts erved byr equi r i ng H egneyt o appea l an i nt er i m hear i ng deci s i on thatw as i s s ued more than s i x y ear s aft erthe i ni t i al hear i ng deci s i on, and w as bas ed on a re c o n sid e ra tio n o f

h is a rg u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e S F S a n d se v e rityra tin g . H is a p p e a l to th e N a tio n a l A p p e a ls B o a rd o f th e in iti a l p a ro le h e a rin g d e c isio n d o e s n o t co n stitu te pr op e re xh a us t i on of

the i nt e r i m par ol e he a r i ng de c i s i on . Se e W oo df or d v . N go , 54 8 U. S. 8 1 , 9 0 (20 0 6 ). Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i th t he governm entthat , becaus e a c at egory“8” of fende rhas no upperl i m i ton hi s par ol e gui del i ne r ange, s ee M adonna v. U . S. Par ol e C om m ’ n, 900 F. 2d 24, 26 ( 3d C i r . 1990) , the ex pos tf acto i s s ue i dent i fi ed i n L y ons v. M endez , 303 F. 3d 285, 288 n. 5 & 292 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( addr es s i ng cas e of pr i s onerw i th gui del i ne maxi m um of 148 m onths ) , has no appl i cat i on t o H egney . H i s gui del i ne r ange of 100+ m onths has no 2 upperbound, and thus the C om m i s s i on coul d nothave l ogi cal l y“ext ended” thatr ange, no r i m perm i ssi blyrel i ed o n 1 8 U . S . C . § 4 20 6 to postpo ne h i s parol e date. H egn ey ’s ex p o st fa c to a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng the habe as corpus pet i t i on.