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 10-19-2005 

# C hhibb a v . F ede r al B ure au 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 . 04-4728

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 " C hhib b a v

. F e de r al B ur e au " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 379. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/379NOT 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 . 04- 4728

________________ ASHOK CHHI BBA

v. F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS ; HAR L E Y G. L AP P I N, i n h i s offici al capac i t yas di rect or of t he F ederal B ureau o f P ri sons; W A R D E N J O H N N A SH , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas W ar den of Fede r al C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 04874) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober14, 2005 Bef or e : A LI TO , SM I TH A N D CO W EN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES

( Fi l ed O ct ober19, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A sh o k C h h ib b a a p p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r su m m a rilyd ism iss in g h is habea s corpus pet i t i on fi l ed under28 U . S. C . § 2241. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, C hhi bba chal l enges t he det erm i nat i on of the B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( B O P) t hathe i s el i gi bl e forpr e-2

r el eas e pl ace m entata C om m uni t yC or r ect i ons C ent er( C C C ) foronl yt he l as tt en per cent of hi s t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s t he appe al as m o o t. W hen he f

i l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on, C hhi bba w as i ncar cer at ed att he Feder al C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on i n For tD i x, N ew J er s ey , s ervi ng a s ent ence of 24 m ont hs i mp o s e d b yt h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s t r i c tCo u r tf o rt h e E a s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Ne w Yo r k . On February11, 2004, t he B O P not i fi ed C hhi bba thathi s pr oj ect ed r el eas e dat e i s O ct ober 14, 2005. T he B O P al s o i nform ed C hhi bba thathe i s el i gi bl e forpr e- r el eas e pl ace m entat a C C C begi nni ng A ugus t13, 2005. A ccor di ng t o C hhi bba, t he B O P bas ed i t s cal cul at i on on i t s i nt erpr et at i on t hat18 U . S. C . § 3624( c) author i zes pr e- r el eas e t o a C C C fort he l esserof the l astt en p ercentof the t i m e t o b e ser ved or si x m on t hs. I n O ct ober2004, C hhi bba cha l l enged the B O P’ s deci s i on byfi l i ng a § 2241 habe as corpus pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . W i t houtor der i ng s ervi ce of t he pet i t i on orr ece i vi ng a re sp o n se f

ro m th e B O P , the D istric t C o u rt re jec ted C h h ib b a ’s p o sitio n a n d su m m a rily di s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on. C hhi bba appe al s . W hi l e hi s appea l has been pe ndi ng, C h h ib b a h a s b e e n p lac e d in a C C C in N e w Y o rk . H e is s til l sc h e d u led f o r c o m p lete r el eas e fr om cus t odyon O ct ober14, 2005. B efor e w e ca n exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on, w e mustdet erm i ne w hethert he appe al p rese n ts an A rt icl e III ca se o r co n tr o v ersy . S ee S p en ce r v. K em n a, 52 3 U . S . 1 , 7 (19 9 8 ). E ven i f a case or con t rovers yexis t ed thr ou gh ou tt he D i stri ctC ou rtproceed i ng s, w e m ust3

d ec ide th at on e c u rren tl yex ist s. S ee O k ere k e v . U n it ed S tat es, 30 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 (3d C ir . 2002) . T he r el evantques t i on i s w hetherC hhi bba “ha s s uffe r ed ori s t hr eat ened w i t h an a c tu a l in ju rytra c e a b le to th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n th a t ca n b e re d re ss e d b ya f a v o ra b le deci s i on her e. ” I d. I f not , w e mustdi s m i s s t he appe al as m oot . I d. H e re , C h h ib b a so u g h t re lief in th e f o rm o f p lac e m e n t at a C C C f

o r th e las t six mo n t h s o f

h i s s e n t e n c e . As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , h e i s n o w i n c u s t o d ya ta CC C. E v e n i f we w er e t o r endera dec i s i on i n favorof C hhi bba, w e ca n pr ovi de no r edr es s foranyi nj ur yhe m ayhave s uffe r ed. I n s hor t , C hhi bba’ s appea l has been r ender ed moot byhi s pl ace m ent in a C C C , an d w e m u st d ism iss it. A ll p e n d in g m o tio n s a re d e n ied a s m o o t.