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 6-17-2005 

# U SA v . D e nt 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 . 05-1098

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 author i 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
" U SA v . D e nt " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 995. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/995AP S - 2 4 9 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 . 05- 1098

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CH AEL D ENT, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 92- cr - 00223- 03) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le R o b e rt F . K e lly

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed O n M ot i on ForSum m aryA ffi r m ance U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ay26, 2005 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, NY GA AR D A ND FUEN TES, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J une 17, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM In 1 9 9 7 , ap p ell an t M icha el D en t w as c o n v ict ed in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt2

for the E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a of c on spi racyt o p ossess and dis t ri bu t e i n ex cess o f f iv e k ilo g ra m s o f

c o c a in e b a se , in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ; h e w a s s e n ten c e d to n in e ty-tw o m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t f o llo w e d b yf

iv e y e a rs o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . W e a f f irm e d th e c o n v ictio n s in 1 9 9 8 . D e n t f iled a m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 to v a c a te hi s s ent ence i n J une 1999, cont endi ng, among ot hert hi ngs , t hathe r ej ect ed a gove r nm ent pl ea of ferbas ed on err oneous advi ce of couns el . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on on th e m e rits in S e p tem b e r 1 9 9 9 . In A u g u st 2 0 0 2 , w e v a c a ted th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o n ly as to the a fo rem en ti o n ed inef fe cti v e c o u n sel claim , an d rem an d ed fo r an ev iden ti ary hear i ng. B yor derent er ed N ovember22, 2002, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed § 2255 r el i ef, and, on r ecomm endat i on of the part i es , m odi fi ed D ent ’ s J udgm entand C om m i t m entor der by : ( 1) r educi ng t he s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm fr om fi ve y ear s t o t hr ee a s D enthad al r eady b e e n re lea se d f

ro m p riso n o n th e c h a llen g e d se n ten c e , an d (2 ) p e rm itt in g D e n t to a p p ly forear l yt erm i nat i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e af t erei ght een mont hs i f he c om pl i ed w i t h t he t erm s of hi s r el eas e. T he ca s e w as t r ans ferr ed t o t he U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi ce f ort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k. D entvi ol at ed the t erm s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and i n Sept ember2004, he w as sen tenc ed to thirty(30 ) m o n ths im p ri so n m en t bythe D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k. H i s appea l of the thi rt ym ont h s ent ence i s curr ent l ypendi ng i n t he U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it. S h o rtlya f

terh e a p p e a led th e N e w Y o rk se n ten c e , D e n t lo d g e d v irtu a lly3

sim u ltan e o u s c o llate ra l atta c k s o n h is te rm o f im p riso n m e n t. H e f

iled a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n in t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c to f

N e w Y o r k , c l a i m i n g t h a th e w a s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i tf o rt h e n i n e t yt w o m ont hs of “e xces s pr i s on t i m e” thathe s erved af t erhe r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s pl ea o f f e r b a se d o n e rro n e o u s a d v ice o f c o u n se l. M e a n w h ile, in th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, D e n t f

iled a p e tit io n f

o r a w rit of cor am nobi s s eeki ng t o m odi fyt hatcour t ’ s 2002 or derr educi ng hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e al l eged thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed U . S. v. J ohns on, 529 U . S. 53 ( 2000) byr educi ng t he per i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e t o m ake up f ort he exc es s t i m e D enthad al r eadys erved i n pr i s on; he al s o cl ai m ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw r ongful l yi m pos ed a t hr ee y earpr obat i onaryt erm fora “B” fel ony . H e as s er t s t hatbeca us e of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s err or , t he N ew Y or k fede r al cour terr oneous l yt r eat ed hi m as a “B” fel on and i m pos ed a s t i ffe rpenal t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thi s pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on i n D ece m ber2004, hol di ng t hat , t o t he ext entt hatD entchal l enged the l egal i t yof the t hi r t y - m ont h s ent ence i m pos ed i n N ew Y or k, hi s onl yavenue of col l at er al r el i ef w as by m eans of a § 2 25 5 m oti on , and t hat he w as precl ud ed from seeki ng § 2 25 5 rel i ef be cause hi s di r ectappea l w as s t i l l pendi ng i n t he Second Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s . T o t he ext ent D entchal l enged the B O P’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve hi m cr edi tforexce s s pr i s on t i m e under18 U . S. C . § 3585( b) , t he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed thathe fa i l ed t o exhaus tt he admi ni s t r at i veB ar el ya w eek l at er , D ent ’ s N ew Y or k § 2241 pet i t i on w as di s m i s s ed w i t hout 1 pr ej udi ce f

orfai l ur e t o exhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . See D entv. B ur eau of P riso n s, C iv . A . N o . 0 4 -0 4 4 7 9 -N G (E .D .N .Y . Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 5 ). It a p p e a rs th a t D e n t d id n o t app ea l th e o rde r. N o ce rt ifi ca te of

ap p ea labili tyis ne ce ssaryto ap p ea l th e d en ial o f a p eti ti o n fo r a 2 w ri t of co ram n o b is. U n it ed S tat es v . B ap ti ste, 2 2 3 F . 3 d 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 4 r emedi es avai l abl e thr ough t he B O P pr i ort o s eeki ng r el i ef i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . D ent 1 f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. 2 T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a s m o v e d to su m m a rilya f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt; D enthas fi l ed a r es pons e and hi s ow n m ot i on fors um m aryact i on. W e w i l l aff i r m t he D istri ct C o u rtb ec au se n o su b stan ti al qu esti o n is prese n ted b ythis ap p ea l. S ee T h ir d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. D entcl ai m s t hatt he cor am nobi s pet i t i on chal l enged the modi fi ed s ent ence im p o se d b yth e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia C o u rt in 2 0 0 2 , n o t th e th irty -m o n th sen tenc e im p o sed in N ew Y o rk. D en t con tend s tha t th e m o d ifi ed three y ea r pro b ati o n ary p e r i o d i mp o s e d i n 2 0 0 2 wa s i l l e g a l b e c a u s e h e wa s o r i g i n a l l ys e n t e n c e d u n d e r2 1 U. S . C. § 841( B ) ( 1) ( B ) , w hi ch r equi r es a mi ni m um of foury ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e. A ccor di ng t o D ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have modi fi ed the j udgm entand comm i t m entt o r efl ect t hathe w as bei ng s ent ence d pur s uantt o § 841( B ) ( 1) ( C ) , beca us e thatpr ovi s i on al l ow s for a m inim u m three y ea r t erm o f su p erv ised release . D en t asserts th at ha d the D istri ct C o u rt m od i fi ed h i s sent ence a ccordi ng l y , t he N ew Y ork C ou rtw ou l d n ot have t reat ed h i m as a “B ” fe l on ori m pos ed the thi r t y - m ont h s ent ence i tdi d.D ent ’ s pet i t i on fai l s no m at t erw hi ch s ent ence he i s chal l engi ng. T o t he ext entt hat

D en t’ s co ram n o b is pe ti ti o n att ac k s the thirty -m o n th se n tenc e im p o sed b ythe N ew Y o rk fede r al cour t , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed the pet i t i on s u b s t a n t i a l l y f

o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n i t s o p i n i o n . As for D ent’s challeng e to the 2 0 0 2 o rd e r m o di f

yi n g th e t e r

m o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , he musts eek r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. C or am nobi s r el i ef i s an extr aor di naryr emedyt r adi t i onal l yus ed t o at t ack c o n v i c t i o n s w i t h c o n t i n u i n g c o n s e q u e n c e s w h e n t h e p e t i t i o n e ri s n o l o n g e r“ i n c u s t o d y” for§ 2255 purpos es . B apt i s t e, 223 F. 3d at189. B eca us e D enti s s t i l l on s upervi s ed re lea se p u rsu a n t to th e m o d if ied se n ten c e , h e is s til l “in c u sto d y ” a n d th u s, c o ra m n o b is r e l i e f i s n o ta v a i l a b l e t o h i m. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our t . T he ap p ell ee s’ m o ti o n fo r sum m aryaf firm an ce is gran ted. D en t’ s m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary act i on, forexpedi t ed cons i der at i on, forappoi nt m entof couns el , and t o pr ocee d on t he or i gi nal r ecor d ar e deni ed.