Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R . 47 .5, th e court ha s determine d that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40817

M IC H A E L C

. A N T O N E L L I P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t v. H A R R YL A P P IN , D i rect or, R espon den t

- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 1: 04- C V

- 253

B ef ore D AV IS, O W E N S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M i c hae lC. Ant o ne l l i , fe de r al pr i s o ne r # 45 05 3- 16 4, f i l e d a ha be as c o r pus pe t i t i o n und e r2 8 U

. S. C. § 2 241 i n the U n i t e d St at e s D i s t r i c tCour tf o rt he E a s te r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s a s s e r tin ga “ p a r o l e p r o b le m .” S p e c ific a lly , A n to n e lli cha l l en ged t h e ef

fectof hi s 1997 ban k f

rau d con vi ct i on on the U n i t ed S t ates P arol e C om m i ssi on ’ s ( “ t h e C om m i ssi on ” ) deci si on t o f orf ei tn i n et een m on t h s of hi s “ s t r e e tt i m e . ” The di s t r i c tco ur tdeni e d A nt o ne l l i ’ s pet i t i o n. W e VA CA TE t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40817

Un der 28 C.F .R. § 2.52(c)(2), the Commissio n mayforfeit the time that aparoleeh as 1 spent in the community(i.e ., “street ti me”) where the parol ee has incurre d a c onvi c t io n for crimin al conduct while under parol e supervision

. Th e Commission’s originalorder forfeiting Antonelli’s “stre et time” was issue d onOctob er 13, 1998 . However, the Commission mi s t ak en ly use d Se ptember2, 198 7 a s theter minationpoint of th e forfeiture and therefore issued a c or r ected order in 199 9 u sing Sep tember21 , 19 87 as th e terminationpoint of th e forfeiture
. 2 d i stri ct cou rt’ s op i n i on an d R E M A N D for fur th er p roce ed i n gs i n acco rd a n ce w i th t hi s o pi ni o n.
I

. FACTS In 197 8, A n t on el l iw as convi ct ed an d sen t en ced i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf

or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof I l l i n oi s t o t w en t y- t w o years’ i m pri sonm en t fo r c on spi ri n g t o com m i tan of fen se agai n stt h e U n i t ed S t ates,
m i sapp ropri ati n g f

u n ds of a ban k i n sured b y t h e F ede ra l D eposi tI n suran ce C or por at i on, pos se ss i ng des t r uct i ve d evi c es , des t r uct i on o f pr ope r t y by
e x p lo s iv e s , a n d ca r r y in ga fir e a r m d u r in gth e c o m m is s io n o f a fe lo n y . A n to n e lli
w a s re le a s e d o n p a r o le o n F e b r u a r y1 1 , 1 9 8 6 b u t w a s a r r e s te d fo rb a n k fr a u d in Se pt e m be ro f

1 98 7. Te n y e ar s l at e r , t he G o ve r nm e n t char ge d a nd o bt ai ne d a
c o nvi c t i o n a gai n st A nt o ne l l if o rt hi s o f

fe ns e . As a r e s ul to f Ant o ne l l i ’ s b ank f r aud co nvi c t i on, t he C om m i ss i on o r der ed t hat the “ st r ee tt i m e” s er ved by Ant o ne l l if

r o m Fe br uar y 11 , 1 98 6 t hr o ugh Se pt e m be r2 0, 1 98 7 be f o r fe i t e d. 1 A n to n e lli’ s a p p e a l o f th e C o m m is s io n ’ s d e c is io n w a s u n s u c c e s s fu l. I n 1 99 9, Antonel l iw as o nc e a ga i n r e l e as e d o n pa r o l e , b uti n 2 00 1, t he C o m m is s io n is s u e d a w a r r a n t fo rA n to n e lli fo rd r u gu s a g e a n d fa ilu r e to s u b m it t o dr ug t es t i ng. Lat ert hats am e y ear , A nt onel l iw as ar r es t ed f or bank ro bber y. Th e Com m i ss i on r ec eived not i c e o f A nt onel l i ’ s ar r es ton O c t obe r16, 2001. A nt onel l i ’ s ar r es tul t i m at el y r es ul t ed i n a c onvi c t i on and a se nt enc e o f s eve nt yt w o m o nt hs ’i m pr i s o nm e nt
. O n Se pt e m be r 12 , 20 02 , t he Com m i s s i o n i s s ue d aN o. 08- 40817

3 sup pl em en tto it s w arran tan d ordered that th e w arran tbe m ain t ain ed as a detain e r. O n Apr i l2 4, 2 00 4, Ant o ne l l if i l e d t hi s pe t i t i o n f

o rw r i to f

ha be as c o r pus purs uant to § 2 2 4 1
. H e a l l ege d t hathi s 1997 ba nk f r aud co nvi c t i on w as unc o ns t i t u t i onalb e c aus e : ( 1) he w as “ de ni e d c o uns e la ta c r i t i c als t ag e o f t he t r i al” ; ( 2) he w as deni e d ac c e s s t o hi s l e ga lpape r s ; and ( 3) he w as i nc o m pe t e nt t o st an d tr i al

. C on sequ en t l y, A n t on el l iargu ed, t h e C om m i ssi on act ed unl awf ul l y byus i ng hi s 1997 b ank f r audc o nvi c t i o n t o f

o r fe i tni ne t e e n m o nt hs of hi s “ st r ee tt i m e. ” The ef fec tof t hi s f or fei t ure as ex pl ai ned by A nt onel l ii s t hat ni ne t e e n m o nt hs o f

pa r o l e hav e no w be e n “ t ac ke d o n” t o t he e nd o f t he pr e s e nt
s e nt e nc e he i s s e r vi ng, t he r e by“ m ak i ng t he t i m e [he m us t ] s e r ve 1 9 m o nt hs l onger t han i t w oul d ot her w i se be ” w i t houtt hi s “ anci ent ” and “ uncons t i t ut i onal
c o nvi c t i o n. ” Ant o ne l l ir e que s t e d t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t “ vi t i at e ” hi s 19 97 b ank f r audc o nvi c t i o n a nd o r de r“ [ t he C o m m i s s i o n] and t he Fe de r alBur e au o f Pr i s o ns to s h o r te n [h is ] fu tu r e p a r o le te r m . . . b y. . . 1 9 m o n th s .” T h e m a g i s t r a te ju d g e file d , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u ltim a te lya d o p te d , a
r epo r tand r ec om m endat i on t o di sm i ss A nt onel l i ’ s pet i t i on, c onc l udi ng t hat becau se A n t on el l iw as no l on ger i n cust ody f or t h e 199 7 conv i ct i on , t h e court la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n t o c o n s id e rh is c h a lle n g e s . H o w e v e r , o n J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , th is C o u r t v a c a te d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. A n ton elli v. L a pp in , 1 3 4 F . A p p ’x 7 0 0 , 70 1 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 5 ). T h i s C ou rt he l d i n releva n t pa rt: To t he e xt e ntt hatAnt o ne l l is o ugh tt o a t t ac k hi s 199 7 c o nvi c t i o n, t h e di st ri ctcourtc o rr e ct l y concl u ded t h at he coul d n otdo so. H ow eve r , A nt onel l ial so i ndi c at ed i n hi s pet i t i on t hathe w as att acking a “parol e problem ” a n d the f orf ei t u re of

19 m on t h s of “s tr e e t t im e .” T o t h e ext en tA n t on el l ii s c h al l en gi n g a deci si on b y t h e U n i t ed St at es Paro l e Com m i ss i on and i t s ef fec t s on hi s par ol e, he m ay p r o c e e d u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1
. B e c a u s e A n to n e lli ch a lle n g e s h is 19 97 c o nvi c t i o n i n t he c o nt e xto f i t s e f fe ct on hi s o ut s t and i ngN o. 08- 40817

4 sentence of

parol e, t h e di st ri ctcourtha d the au t h ori t y t o con si der t h e m eri t s of

t h ose c l ai m s. Id

. (i n t erna l ci t ati on s om i t t ed, em ph asi s ad ded )

. W e t h en vacated t h e d ist ri ct
c o ur t ’ s j udg m e nta nd r e m and e d t he c as e t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o c o ns i de rt he
m e r i t s o f

t he § 2 24 1 pe t i t i o n. O n r e m a n d , t h e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e a g a in r e c o m m e n d e d d e n y in gA n t o n e ll i’s pet i t i on. The m agi st r at e j udge c onc l uded t hatbe c ause A nt onel l i ’ s of fens e w as pu n i sha bl e by a ter m of im pri sonm en t , the C om m i ssi on w as st atutor i l y requ i red t o f orf ei thi s “ st reett i m e. ” Th e reportan d recom m en da t i on w en ton to st ate: [A] pa r o l e e m ayn o tc o l l at e r al l y at t ac k a c o nvi c t i o n up o n whi c h a deci si on t o revoke pa rol e or ot h er act i on t ak en by the C om m i ssi on w a s b a s e d

. S ee Fric k v. Q u in lin , 6 3 1 F .2d 3 7 , 3 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 0 ); Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 5 8 F .2d 2 2 4 , 2 2 7

– 2 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 7 ).
“ O bviousl y a pa rol ee cann otrel i t i gate i ssues de te rm i n ed ag ai n st h i m in o t he rf

o r um s , a s i n t he s i t uat i o n pr e s e nt e d when t he rev oca ti on i s ba sed on con victi on of a n oth er crim e.” Morri ssey v . B rew er , 4 0 8 U .S

. 4 7 1 , 4 9 0 (19 7 2 ). A n t on el l iv. G aines , N o. 1 : 04cv2 53 ( E

. D

. T ex. N ov. 1 9, 2 007 )

. T h e d i st ri ctcourt
a d o p t e d th e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s r e p o r ta n d r e c o m m e n d a t io n , d e n y in gA n t o n e ll i’s § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n . A n t on el l iv. G aines , N o . 1 :04 cv 2 5 3 (E .D

. T e x . J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 ). A n t on el l iapp eal s.
I I

. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W hen c ons i der i n g a di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof habeas r el i ef

under § 2 241,
w e re v ie w fin d i n g s o f fa c t fo rcle a re r r o ra n d is s u e s o f la w d e n o v o . R oy alv. Tom bo ne , 1 4 1 F .3d 5 9 6 , 5 9 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ).

III. A N A L Y S IS O n rem a n d , w e d eterm i n ed tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt “ h a d the au th ority to consi der t h e m eri t s of t h ose c l ai m s. ” I n st ead of consi deri n g th e m eri t s ofN o. 08- 40817

“The law of the case do ctrin e provides that ‘an issue of l aw orfact decided on appeal 2 maynot b e re ex amin ed either b y the district co urt on reman d orbyth e appell ate court ona subsequent appeal .’” Fu hrman , 442 F.3dat 896 (quot ing United States v. Bece rra , 15 5 F .3d 740 , 75 2 (5 th Cir. 1 998)). B ecau se noneof the exceptio ns toth e law of th e ca se doctrin e apply here , th e mandat e rule require dt he district co urt on reman d to “‘imple ment bothth e l etter an d th e spirit of [o ur prior] man date.’” Id

. at 897 (quot ing Bece rra , 1 5 5 F

. 3 d at75 3). Th e district co urt was not fre e to“di sregard the ‘explicit directives’ of [this] [C]ourt .” Id

. (quotin g Bece rra , 1 5 5F .3 d at 7 5 3). I n obj ectin g to the reportan d re commendation , Anton elli argu ed th at he was entitle d 3 to merits review under Daniels v. United States , 53 2 U.S. 374(20 01), and Lack aw annaCounty Dist. Attorne

y v. Coss , 53 2 U .S. 39 4 (2 001 ). We n eed not addres s t he s e arguments here because the same result is required un der the law of th e ca se doctrin e. Moreover, given that thoseca ses were decide d prior to th e 2 005remand order issued in t hi s c ase, it i s cle ar that theydo not constitutean intervenin g ch ange of law, and in anyevent, we must assume that the priorpanel took them intoaccount. 5 A n t on el l i ’ s c l ai m s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr ul e d t hat“ t ho s e c l ai m s ” c o ns t i t ut e d a col l ater alatt ack on t h e ori gi n alconvi ct i on , w h i ch A n t on el l icou l d n otchal l en ge. H o w e ve r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no t c o ns i de r t he m e r i t s o f t he c l ai m s . U nde rt he la w o f th e ca s e d o c tr in e , o u rp r io r d e c is io n in th is m a tt e ris b in d in go n th is p a n e l, a s w e ll a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Fu hrm an v. D r e t ke , 44 2 F

. 3 d 89 3 , 89 6 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 6)

. “ U nde rt hi s do c t r i ne , a pr i o rde c i s i o n wi l lb e fol l ow e d wi t ho ut

2
r e -e x a m in a tio n u n le s s , in tera lia , ‘ t her e has bee n an i nt er veni ng c hange of l aw b y a con troll i n g a u th ority. ’” Pon d ext er v . Q uar t e r m an , 53 7 F

. 3 d 51 1 , 52 3 ( 5 th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Uni t e d S t at e s v. Agof s ky , 5 1 6 F .3d 2 8 0 , 2 8 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 )). T h e r e h a s b e e n n o s u c h i n t e r v e n i n gc h a n g e o f l a w. 3 T h e G overnm en tof

f ers n o ar gum e nt s i n res pon se t o A n t on el l i ’ s c on t en t i on t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tf o l l o w o urm and at e a nd m ak e t he de t e r m i nat i o ns
r e qui r e d b y o urpr i o ropi ni o n, and no r e as o n fo rt hi s fai l ur e i s appa r e ntf r o m t he
r ec or d. Acc or di ngl y, t o t he e xt entA nt onel l ic hal l enges th e effec tof hi s 1997
c o nvi c t i o n o n hi s o ut s t and i ng pa r o l e s e nt e nc e , w e a ga i n r e m and t hi s c as e t o t he di st r i c tc our tw i t h i nst r uct i ons t o m ake fac t ualf i ndi ngs and appro pri at e l egal
c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d o n t h o s e f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e me r i t s o f A n t o n e l l i ’ s c l a i ms assert ed i n hi s § 224 1 peti t i on . Th ese det erm i n ati on s are n otf or t h e pu rpose ofN o. 08- 40817

6 decl ari n g t h e 1 997 con vi ct i on invali d f or al lpu rposes but r ather f or t h e l i m i t ed pu rpose of

deter m i n i n g w h et h er t h e 199 7 conv i ct i on requires the f orf ei t u re of ni ne t e e n m o nt hs o f

“ s t r e e tt i m e , ” a s de t e r m i ne d b y t he Par o l e Com m i s s i o n.

I V. C ONC L US I ON A ccor di n gl y, w e VA C A T E the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s j u dg m en tan d R E M A N D f or f ur t he rpr o c e e di ngs i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.
VA CA T ED a n d R EMANDE D.