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 

# W i lb e r t H a ck ley Jr . v . W arde n B led so e 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 . 09-2577

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 i lbe r t H a ck

ley Jr . v . W ar de n B le d s oe " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 355. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/355B L D - 007 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- 2577 W IL B E R T E . H A C K L E Y , J R ., A p p e llan t, v . WARDE N B L E DS OE 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 N o. 08- cv- 01500) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 O ct ober9, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, 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 ppel l antW i l bertH ackl eyw as s ent ence d on M ay11, 1979 i n U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e D istric t o f

C o lu m b ia C o u rt to th re e c o n c u rre n t ten -y e a r Y o u th C orr ect i ons A cts ent ence s . W hi l e s ervi ng thos e s ent ence s , on D ece m ber25, 1982,2

H ackl eyw as i nvol ved i n a pr i s on r i ot . E ventual l y , he w as convi ct ed of f i r s tdegr ee m ur deri n connec t i on w i th t he dea th of a pr i s on guar d, and, on M ay1, 1984, he w as se n ten c e d in U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f V irg in ia. H is s ent ence forthe murde rw as l i fe i m pr i s onm ent ; i n addi t i on, he w as s ent ence d t o t en cons ecut i ve y ear s foras s i s t i ng i n m ut i nyand r i ot , t en cons ecut i ve y ear s forconvey ance of a w eapon w i thi n a fe der al penal i ns t i tut i on, and t en cons ecut i ve y ear s foras s aul tand im p e d in g a n o f

f ice r in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

h is o f f icia l d u ties , b rin g in g h is a g g re g a te fede r al s ent ence t o l i fe pl us 30 y ear s . See U ni t ed St at es v. H ackl ey , 164 Fed. A ppx. 301 ( 4th C i r . 2006) ( aff

i r m i ng deni al of s ect i on 2255 m ot i on) . A l though the U ni t ed St at es P a ro le C o m m iss io n h a d p re v io u slysc h e d u led H a c k ley’s re lea se o n p a ro le f ro m th e Y o u th C o rre c tio n s A c t se n ten c e s, th e n e w c o n v ictio n s n e c e ss itate d re c o n sid e ra tio n o f th is d e c isio n . E v e n tu a lly , the P a ro le C o m m iss io n g ra n ted H a c k ley pa ro le o n h is Y o u th C orr ect i ons A cts ent ence s , butthi s par ol e w as t o hi s fede r al s ent ence , nott o the c o m m u n ity. T he Par ol e C om m i s s i on conduct ed an i ni t i al par ol e hea r i ng forH ackl eyon the f e d e ra l se n ten c e s o n Ju n e 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 . It w a s n o ted in th e N o tice o f A c tio n re latin g to th is hear i ng thatH ackl eyhad bee n i n fede r al cus t odyfora t ot al of 146 m onths as of J une 30, 1996 ( i ndi cat i ng thathi s fede r al s ent ence began t o run on the dat e he w as s ent ence d) . See R es pons e t o Pet i t i on, E xhi bi t8. T he C om m i s s i on found hi s t ot al fede r al par ol e gui del i ne r ange t o be 204+ m onths t o be s erved pr i ort o par ol e. I d. T hi s deci s i on of m or e than 483

m on ths abo ve the m i nim um gu i deli ne w as w arr anted, i n the C om m i ssi on ’s view , becau se of the brut al natur e of the ki l l i ng, and H ackl ey ’ s part i cul arcontr i but i on t o i t . I d. T he C o m m iss io n d e n ied p a ro le, a n d o rd e re d th a t H a c k ley se rv e a n o th e r 1 5 y e a rs o f h is s e n te n c e p ri o r t o h is n e x t r e c o n s id e ra tio n h e a ri n g , w h ic h w a s s c h e d u le d f o r J u n e 2 0 1 1 . I d. H ackl eyr ece i ved a s t atut oryi nt er i m hear i ng on J une 3, 1998, aft erw hi ch the Par ol e C om m i s s i on or der ed no cha nge i n the pr i oror derthathe s erve t o a 15- y ear r econs i der at i on hear i ng. T he C om m i s s i on conduct ed an i nt er i m hear i ng on J une 6, 2000, aft erw hi ch i tor der ed no cha nge. A gai n, aft era J ul y1, 2002 hear i ng, the C om m i s s i on or der ed no cha nge. A ft eri nt er i m hear i ngs on J une 24, 2004, and aga i n on M ay4, 2006, the C om m i s s i on or der ed no cha nge i n i t s or derthatH ackl eys erve t o a 15- y ear r econs i der at i on hear i ng i n J une 2011. T he C om m i s s i on m os tr ece nt l yhear d H ackl eyon Ap r i l 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e Co mm i s s i o n a g a i n o r d e r e d n o c h a n g e i n i t s p r i o ro r d e r . On admi ni s tr at i ve appe al , the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d aff i r m ed thi s deci s i on. O n A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , H a c k ley file d a p e tit io n f o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, c laim in g th a t th e P a ro le C o m m iss io n v io late d § 2 3 5 (b )(3 ) o f th e S e n ten c in g R e f

o rm A c t, 18 U . S. C . § 3551 ets eq. , and Ly ons v. M endez , 303 F. 3d 285 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , bynot gi vi ng hi m a r el eas e dat e. H e al s o cl ai m ed thatthe C om m i s s i on di s r egar ded i t s “rul e” thata pr i s onerw ho has s erved 30 y ear s i n pr i s on i s pr es um pt i vel yent i t l ed t o r el eas e, and4

a rg u e d th e re is n o ra tio n a l b a sis f o r h is h a v in g to sp e n d m o re th a n 3 0 to tal y e a rs in cus t ody . T he M agi s tr at e J udge fi l ed a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on, i n w hi ch he r ecomm ended thatthe habe as corpus pet i t i on be deni ed. I n an or derent er ed on M ar ch 3, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the R eportand R ecomm endat i on, and deni ed the pet i t i on. H ackl ey ’ s t i m el yfi l ed mot i on forr econs i der at i on w as deni ed i n an or derent er ed o n M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 9 . Ha c k l e ya p p e a l s . Ou rCl e r k g r a n t e d h i m l e a v e t o a p p e a l i n f o r ma pauper i s and advi s ed hi m thathi s appea l w as s ubj ectt o s um m arydi s m i s s al under28 U . S. C. § 1 91 5( e ) ( 2) ( B) ors umm a r ya ff i r manc e un de rThi r d Ci r . LA R 27. 4 a nd I . O . P. 10. 6. H e w as i nvi t ed t o s ubm i tar gum enti n w r i t i ng, buthe has notdone s o. W e w i l l sum m ari l yaffirm un der T hir d C i rcui tL A R 27 . 4 an d I. O . P . 10 . 6, becau se i tcl ear l yappea r s thatno s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed bythi s appea l . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s concl us i on of l aw thatH ackl eycoul d notbe af for ded anyr el i ef. See, e. g. , Fow l er v. 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 conc l ude thatL y ons i s i nappl i cabl e t o H ackl eyand the P a ro le C o m m is s io n h a s n o c u rr e n t o b lig a tio n u n d e r § 2 3 5 (b )( 3 ) t o s e t a f in a l r e le a s e d a te . F u rth e rm o re , H a c k ley i s n o t elig ib le f o r m a n d a to ryp a ro le a f

ter sp e n d in g 3 0 to tal y e a rs in cus t ody ; he i s onl yel i gi bl e form andat orypar ol e af t ers ervi ng tw o- thi r ds of ea ch c o m p o n e n t o f

h is f e d e ra l s e n te n c e . T he Sent enci ng R eform A ctcr eat ed new s ent enci ng pr ocedur es i n the fe der al5

sy ste m , rep lac in g “ in d e ter m in a te s e n ten c e s a n d th e p o ss ib ili tyo f p a ro le w ith d e ter m in a te se n ten c in g a n d n o p a ro le.” L y o n s, 3 0 3 F .3 d a t 2 8 8 -8 9 (q u o tin g W a ld e n v . U .S . P a ro le C om m ' n, 114 F. 3d 1136, 1138 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ) . I tabol i s hed the Par ol e C om m i s s i on and r epea l ed fe der al par ol e s t atut es , but§ 235 pr ovi ded a s avi ngs pr ovi s i on t o keep the C o m m is s io n a n d p a ro le s ta tu te s in e f f e c t f o r a p e ri o d o f

tr a n s itio n to th e n e w s y s te m . W alde n , 1 1 4 F . 3 d at 11 3 8 . T h ese tr an sit ion sec ti o n s ap p lyto o ff en ses c o m m itted b ef

o re th e A c t’s e f

f e c tiv e d a te, w h ich in c lu d e s H a c k ley. L y o n s, 3 0 3 F .3 d a t 2 8 8 . A s o rig in a lly e n a c ted in 1 9 8 4 , se c tio n 2 3 5 (b )(3 ) p ro v id e d th a t th e C o m m iss io n sh a ll se t a r e lea se d a te b e f o re th e e x p ir a tio n o f

f iv e y e a rs a f

te r t h e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e A c t. S e e id . a t 2 8 8 n .3 . A s expl ai ned bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , s i nce i t s or i gi nal enac t m ent , s ect i on 235( b) ( 3) has been c ont i nual l yamended t o ext end the fi ve y ears avi ngs pr ovi s i on forthe C om m i s s i on and par ol e s t atut es , s ee D i s tr i ctC our tM emora ndum , at5; s ee a l s o W al den, 114 F. 3d at 1138- 39, and the Par ol e C om m i s s i on and par ol e s t atut es ar e curr ent l ys ett o expi r e on O ct ober31, 2011, s ee Pub. L . N o. 110- 312, § 2, 122 St at . 3013 ( A ugus t12, 2008) (ex tend ing sav ing s p rov isi o n b y2 4 y ea rs af ter eff ec ti v e d ate o f S en tenc ing R ef o rm A ct). T he Par ol e C om m i s s i on has neverhad t o appl y§ 235( b) ( 3) , beca us e the c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

th e w in d in g u p p ro c e s s h a s b e e n c o n tin u o u s ly p o s tp o n e d b yC o n g re s s . T he C om m i s s i on’ s s chedul ed abol i t i on curr ent l yi s O ct ober31, 2011, and i tw i l l nothave an obl i gat i on t o s eta r el eas e dat e forH ackl eyunt i l j us tbefor e thatt i m e. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n concl udi ng thatthe Par ol e C om m i s s i on di d notvi ol at e the6

Sent enci ng R eform A ctbyfai l i ng t o s eta r el eas e dat e forH ackl eyi n the y ear2008. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ydeni ed H ackl ey ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w her ei n he att em p ted to raised a d iffe ren t st atuto ryarg u m en t con ce rnin g the P aro le C o m m issi o n ’s 1 9 9 6 d ec isi o n in h is case . S ee H arsc o C o rp. v. Z lotnick i, 7 7 9 F . 2 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 9 (3d C ir . 1985) ( purpos e of mot i on forr econs i der at i on “i s t o corr ectm ani fes terr or s of l aw orfac t o r t o p re s e n t n e w ly d is c o v e re d e v id e n c e ” ). T o t he ext entH ackl eyi nt ended t o r ai s e an e x pos tfac t o ar gum ent , w e conc l ude thatL y ons , 303 F. 3d 285, does notappl yt o hi m . I n L y ons , w e hel d that , forper s ons w ho comm i t t ed thei rcr i m es betw een the ef fec t i ve dat e of the or i gi nal ver s i on of § 235( b) ( 3) and D ece m ber1, 1987, appl i cat i on of the amended ver s i on of § 235( b) ( 3) , w hi ch perm i t t ed the C om m i s s i on t o s eta par ol e el i gi bi l i tydat e out s i de the gui del i ne r ange, vi ol at es the ex pos tfac t o cl aus e. See i d. at293. W e found thatthe ef fec t i ve dat e of § 235( b) ( 3) w as O ct ober12, 1984. See i d. T her efor e, per s ons w ho comm i t t ed thei rcr i m es betw een O ct ob er 12, 19 84 and D ecem ber 1, 19 87 m ustrecei ve rel ease dates w ith in th e ir par ol e gui del i ne r anges underthe or i gi nal l anguage of § 235( b) ( 3) , beca us e t o appl yt he l at eramendm entvi ol at es ex pos tfac t o. H ackl eydoes notfal l w i thi n thi s cl as s of per s ons beca us e he c om m i t t ed the off ens es w hi ch r es ul t ed i n hi s l i fe pl us 30 y ears ent ence on D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 1 9 8 2 . In a n ye v e n t, be c a u se H a c k ley’s re c a lcu late d se v e rityra tin g is C at egoryE i ght , s ee Respons e t o Pet i t i on, E xhi bi t10, and bec aus e C at egoryE i ght gui del i ne r anges have no uppe rl i m i t , a dec i s i on m or e than 48 mont hs above the mi ni m um7

cannotl ogi cal l ybe a de ci s i on above th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . M a d o n n a v . U .S . P a ro le C o m m issi o n , 9 0 0 F . 2 d 2 4 , 2 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). L as t , H ackl ey ’ s cl ai m thatthe C om m i s s i on vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s by f a ili n g to re lea se h im a f

ter se rv ice o f

3 0 y e a rs in c u sto d yis m e ritles s. T h e a p p lica b le st atute pr ov i des:

A pr i s oner , s ervi ng a s ent ence of fi ve y ear s orl onger , w ho i s notear l i er r el eas ed underthi s s ect i on oranyotherappl i cabl e pr ovi s i on of l aw , s hal l be release d o n p aro le af

ter ha v ing serv ed tw o -th ir d s o f e ac h co n sec u ti v e term ort erm s , oraft ers ervi ng thi r tyy ear s of ea ch cons ecut i ve t erm ort erm s of m o re tha n fo rty -five y ea rs i n clud ing an yli fe term , w h iche v er is earli er: Pr ovi ded, how ever , T hatthe C om m i s s i on s hal l notr el eas e anys uch pr i s oneri f i tdet erm i nes thathe has s er i ous l yorfr equent l yvi ol at ed i ns t i tut i on rul es and r egul at i ons orthatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyt hat he w i l l comm i tanyFeder al , St at e, orl ocal cr i m e. 1 8 U . S . C . § 4 2 0 6 (d). Se e a lso 2 8 C . F . R . § 2 . 5 3 (a). H a c k ley’s tw o -th ird s d a te, a s c o m p u ted b yth e F e d e ra l B u re a u o f P riso n s, is A p ril 30, 2034. T hi s i s corr ect , beca us e, pr oper l yr ead, the s t atut e r equi r es s ervi ce of tw o- thi r ds of “ each con secut i ve t erm or t erm s, ” thati s , s ervi ce of 30 y ear s on the l i fe s ent ence (“a fter se rvin g thirtyy ea rs of ea ch co n sec u ti v e term o r t erm s o f m o re tha n fo rty -five y ea rs i ncl udi ng anyl i fe t erm ”) , t o w hi ch i s added s ervi ce of tw o- thi r ds of the r emai ni ng 30- y ear aggr egat e s ent ence , or20 y ear s . T he s t atut e r equi r es H ackl eyt o s erve 50 y ear s , and, g iv e n th a t h is f

e d e ra l se n ten c e s c o m m e n c e d o n M a y1 , 1 9 8 4 , the m a n d a to ryp a ro le d a te cal cul at ed bythe B O P i s corr ect . H ackl eyhas noty ets erved tw o- thi r ds of hi s l i fe pl us 30 y ear s fede r al s ent ence , and he ha s no curr entm andat oryr i ghtunder§ 4206( d) t o be8

re le a s e d o n p a ro le . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the or der s of the D i s tr i ct C our tdeny i ng the habe as corpus pet i t i on and mot i on forr econs i der at i on.