ALD-314, ALD-315, ALD-316, ALD-317, NOT PRECEDENTIAL

ALD-318, ALD-319 and ALD-320

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 14-2702, 14-2703, 14-2704, 14-2705, 14-2706, 14-2707 & 14-2708

___________

JAMES HENDRICKS,

Appellant in 14-2702

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00285)

___________

ERIC SLATER,

Appellant in 14-2703

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00277)

___________

ABAD ELFGEEH,

Appellant in 14-2704

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-00001)

___________

ALBERT RANIERI,

Appellant in 14-2705
2

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-00002)

___________

JAMES EDWARD WHITTED,

Appellant in 14-2706

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00278)

___________

PAUL APOSTOLOPOULOS,

Appellant in 14-2707

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00281)

___________

KEVIN MAHONEY,

Appellant in 14-2708

v.

PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN LORETTO FCI

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00280)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action
3

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 31, 2014

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 26, 2014)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Appellants are federal inmates who are or were confined at the Federal 

Correctional Institution in Loretto within the Western District of Pennsylvania. Each 

appellant is serving a sentence imposed outside that district,1 and each appellant filed a 

materially identical habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in that district seeking 

immediate release from prison. The District Court denied the petitions on April 16, 2014. 

Appellants appeal, and we will affirm.2

Federal inmates may challenge the execution of their sentences under § 2241 in 

their court of confinement, see Burkey, 556 F.3d at 146, but they generally may challenge 

the legality of their sentences only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and must do so in the 

 1 Appellant Hendricks’s sentence was imposed at N.D. Ind. No. 2-01-cr-00105-001. 

Slater’s sentence was imposed at S.D. Ohio No. 1-07-cr-00155-001. Elfgeeh’s sentence 

was imposed at E.D.N.Y. No. 1-03-cr-00133-001. Ranieri’s sentence was imposed at 

W.D.N.Y. No. 6-02-cr-06126-001. Whitted’s sentence was imposed at D.V.I. No. 3-04-

cr-00176-001. Apostolopoulos’s sentence was imposed at D. Md. No. 1-05-cr-00322-

001. Mahoney’s sentence was imposed at D. Mass. No. 1-10-cr-10389-001.

2 A certificate of appealability not required to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition. See

Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009). We thus have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellees have informed us that Hendricks and Mahoney have been 

transferred to different facilities, but that transfer has not mooted their requests for 

outright and immediate release from prison discussed below.
4

sentencing court, see United States v. Tyler, 732 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir. 2013); Furnari v. 

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 531 F.3d 241, 254 (3d Cir. 2008). Appellants in these cases 

requested immediate release from prison on the ground that their sentences are unlawful.

According to appellants, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 does not authorize 

incarceration unless the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) provides a mechanism for requesting 

a reduction in sentence for non-medical reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).3

 

Appellants further contend that the BOP failed to provide them with a “compassionate 

release request packet” upon request and that, when they created and submitted their 

own, the BOP took no action on them. 

Appellants, however, do not request an order directing the BOP to process any 

such request or to execute their sentences differently in any other way. Instead, they 

claim that the BOP’s alleged failure to process their requests for reduced sentences 

renders the sentences themselves unlawful and that “immediate release [from prison] is 

the only sanctioned remedy[.]” (E.g., W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3-13-cv-00285, ECF No. 1-3 at 

6.) To that end, each appellant “seeks the re-ordering of his sentence to provide that he 

serve his supervised release term immediately[.]” (E.g., id., ECF No. 1-1 at 4.)

The District Court properly recognized that it lacks jurisdiction to grant that 

 3 This statute permits a sentencing court, “upon motion of the Director of the [BOP],” to 

reduce a sentence if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 

The BOP’s regulations provide a mechanism for inmates to request that the BOP file such 

a motion. 28 C.F.R. §§ 571.60-571.64. Although we need not and do not reach the issue, 

we note the conclusion of other courts that the BOP’s discretionary decision not to file a 

motion for a reduced sentence is not reviewable in court. See, e.g., Crowe v. United 

States, 430 F. App’x 484, 485 (6th Cir. 2011) (collecting precedential decisions).
5

request, which must be addressed to the courts that imposed the sentences that appellants 

seek to have “re-ordered.” No appellant has stated any reason why a § 2255 motion in 

his sentencing court might be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his 

detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), and we perceive none. Indeed, four appellants already 

have raised their claims in this regard before their sentencing courts.4

 We thus express 

no opinion on the merits of appellants’ claims, though we note that appellants have not 

cited, and we are not aware of, any authority suggesting that their allegations state a basis 

for the relief they request, in their sentencing courts or any other.

For these reasons, appellees’ motion for summary action is granted and we will 

affirm the judgments of the District Court. Appellants’ pending motions in this Court are 

denied.

 4 Those appellants are Hendricks, Elfgeeh, Ranieri and Whitted, each of whom recently 

filed in their sentencing courts a materially identical document captioned as a “request to 

take judicial notice” of the claim discussed above. In Ranieri’s case, for example, the 

sentencing court construed his notice as a motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and denied it because it was not brought by the BOP. Ranieri’s 

appeal to the Second Circuit from that ruling apparently remains pending.