2008 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 12-16-2008 

# Nap oleon Gra

ves v . Ronnie H olt 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 . 08-3215

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Napo le on Gr a

ve s v . Ronnie H o lt " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 102. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1021 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. 08- 3215

___________ N A PO LEO N G RA V ES,

A ppel l ant vs. RO NN I E HO LT

____________________________________ 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 A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 00849) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N O V E M B E R 24, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S A N D W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed D ece m ber16, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A p p ell an t N ap o leon G rav es a p p ea ls from an o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt d is m is s in g h is p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s f

ile d p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . F in d in g n o e rro r, w e w ill a f f irm . B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e re lev a n t f a c tsT he Pr i nce W i l l i am C ounty( V i r gi ni a) pr os ecut ordecl i ned t o pr os ecut e cr i m i nal 1 charges. 2 a n d th e p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d , w e w ill n o t d is c u s s th e m in d e ta il.

G rav es w as se n tenc ed in the D istri ct of C o lum b ia S u p erior C o u rtto a term of i m pr i s onm entof 12 y ear s fora M ay1989 convi ct i on foratt empt ed di s tr i but i on of coca i ne, and t o an addi t i onal 690 day s forcarry i ng a dange r ous w eapon, att empt ed p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e , an d sim p le a ss a u lt. O n O c to b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 0 , h e w a s p a ro led f ro m h is D C s e n te n c e a n d w a s to re m a in u n d e r p a ro le s u p e rv is io n u n til J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 8 .

O n A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , the U n ited S tate s P a ro le C o m m iss io n iss u e d a W a rra n t, char gi ng G r aves w i th vi ol at i ng the condi t i ons of hi s par ol e bydr i vi ng r eckl es s l yand r efus i ng t o t ake a br eathal y s ert es t . O n J une 16, 2006, G r aves w as arr es t ed and c har ged w i th thr eat s , as s aul tw i th a dange r ous w eapon, and fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm , on the b asi s of a d om est i c i ncident . T he P arol e C om m i ssi on subsequ entl yadd ed these charges t o the A pri l 20 06 W arr ant. D uri ng the p arol e-r el at ed p robable cause proceed i ng s, G raves’ w i fe, G l ady s, and st epson , C arl os H ow ard, w ere l i st ed as ad verse

1 w itn e ss e s o n th e b a sis o f sta tem e n ts th e yg a v e to p o lice o n th e d a yo f th e Ju n e 1 6 a rre st. O n S e p te m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , th e P a ro le C o m m is s io n h e ld a re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g . G ra v e s w a s re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l. T h e a rre stin g o f f ice r, O f f ice r H e a d ric k , tes tifie d in acc or dance w i th t he arr es tr eport , w hi ch i ncorpor at ed the or i gi nal s t at ement s gi ven by M rs. G ra v e s a n d M r. H o w a rd . In h is d e f e n se , G ra v e s’ c o u n se l in tro d u c e d n e w sta tem e n ts3

fr om M r s . G r aves and M r . H ow ar d, di s avow i ng thei ror i gi nal s t at ement s . C ouns el had m e t w ith th e m p re v io u sly , an d , af ter o b tain in g th e n e w sta tem e n ts, to ld th e m th e ir pr es ence atthe hea r i ng w oul d notbe r equi r ed. I n fac ttheydi d notappea ratthe hea r i ng. T h e h e a rin g e x a m in e r re c o m m e n d e d n o f in d in g o f g u ilto n a n yo f

th e c h a rg e s. A s to C har ge 3( B ) i n part i cul ar , fel on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm , the “no f

i ndi ng” dec i s i on w as bas ed on the fa i l ur e of M r s . G r aves and M r . H ow ar d t o appea r . T he hea r i ng exami ner re a so n e d th a t O f

f ice r H e a d ric k ’s te stim o n yw a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt a f

in d in g o f g u ilt , b e c a u s e h e h a d n o f

ir s t- h a n d k n o w le d g e o f G ra v e s ’ p o s s e s s io n o f

th e f ir e a rm . O n O ct ober6, 2006, the r evi ew i ng exami nerdi s agr eed w i th the di s pos i t i on of C har ge 3( B ) and found thatthe pr eponder ance of the evi dence s uppor t ed a f i ndi ng t hat G r aves had cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of a f i r earm . T he Par ol e C om m i s s i on agr eed w i t h t he revi ew i ng exam i ner. Iti ssued a N oti ce of A ct i on on O ct ob er 11, 20 06 , revoking G raves’ par ol e and or der i ng hi m t o s erve 24 mont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A l l of G r aves ’ s tr eett i m e w as f o rf e ite d , g iv in g h im a n e w f u ll te rm d a te o f

M a rc h 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 . G r aves t i m el yappea l ed t o the N at i onal A ppeal s B oar d. H e cont ended that O ffi cerH eadr i ck l i ed aboutthe J une 16, 2006 fi r earm i nci dent , and thathi s t es t i m onyhad been ba s ed on unr el i abl e hea r s ay– thati s , on the or i gi nal s t at ement s gi ven atthe s cene by M r s . G r aves and M r . H ow ar d. G r aves cl ai m ed thatO ffi cerH eadr i ck thr eat ened hi s w i fe and s t eps on, caus i ng them t o gi ve the i nform at i on thati m pl i cat ed hi m i n the cr i m e of fe lon in p o sses sion . T h e A p p ea ls B o ard w as n o t persu ad ed an d af firm ed . T h e B o ard4

acknow l edged thatther e had be en di ffe r i ng acc ount s aboutw hathad happe ned i n the G r aves ’ hom e pr i ort o the pol i ce de part m ent ’ s arr i val on the s cene , and thatthe l ocal p ro se c u to r h a d d e c lin e d to p re ss c rim in a l ch a rg e s. N e v e rth e les s, th e in iti a l sta tem e n ts g iv e n b yM rs. G ra v e s a n d M r. H o w a rd w e re ju d g e d to b e c re d ib le a n d th e ya d e q u a tely s uppor t ed the cha r ge underthe appl i cabl e s t andar d. T he l at ers t at ement s , acc or di ng t o t he B oar d, w er e “notm or e cr edi bl e than the ver s i on pr ovi ded bypol i ce ba s ed upon s ta te m e n ts m a d e im m e d ia te ly af te r t h e in c id e n t a n d th e te s tim o n yo f O f f ic e r H e a d ri c k .” G r aves fi l ed the i ns t anthabea s corpus pet i t i on i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i 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, a lleg in g th a t (1 ) th e P a ro le C o m m iss io n , in adj udi cat i ng hi m gui l ty , i m pr oper l yr el i ed upon unr el i abl e hea r s ayevi dence ( O ffi cer H ea d ri ck ’s t esti m o n yco n ce rnin g the in it ial stat em en ts give n b yM rs. G rav es a n d M r. H o w a rd ), an d (2 ) h is c o u n se l b e f o re th e P a ro le C o m m iss io n h a d b e e n in e f f e c tiv e in ad v isi n g thes e w itn esse s n o t t o ap p ea r. T h e P aro le C o m m issi o n su b m itted a n an sw er, as s ert i ng thateac h ar gum entadvanc ed byG r aves had notbeen f ul l ypr es ent ed t o the A ppeal s B oar d. T he M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on, r ecomm endi ng thatthe pet i t i on be deni ed. I n pert i nentpart , he conc l uded thatthe i neff ect i ven ess cl ai m w as unex hau st ed an d the due process cl ai m l acked m eri tbecau se th e B o a rd m a yc o n sid e r h e a rsa ye v id e n c e , an d th e re w a s a ra tio n a l b a sis in th e re c o rd to s uppor tthe r evoca t i on of G r aves ’ par ol e. I n an O r derent er ed on M ay27, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the R eportand R ecomm endat i on, and di s m i s s ed i n partand deni ed5

i n partG r aves ’ habea s corpus pet i t i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

W e w i l l affirm . A s a D i stri ctof C olum bia pr i soner G raves needs a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyt o pr ocee d, s ee M adl eyv. U . S. Par ol e C om m ’ n, 278 F. 3d 1306, 1309 ( D . C . C i r . 2002) ( D . C . pr i s oneri s s t at e pr i s onerforpurpos es of fe der al habea s corpus s t atut e) ; C oadyv. V aughn, 251 F. 3d 480, 486 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( s t at e pr i s oner i n cus t odypur s uantt o j udgm entof s t at e courtm us tr el yon 28 U . S. C . § 2254 t o br i ng cl ai m s chal l engi ng exec ut i on of hi s s ent ence ) ; 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( cert i fi cat e of a p p e a lab ili tyre q u ire d to p ro c e e d w ith a p p e a l w h e re c o n tin u e d d e ten tio n re su lted in iti a lly f ro m s ta te c o u rt ju d g m e n t) , a n d w e h e re b yg ra n t it.

G r aves has now s erved hi s 24- m onth par ol e vi ol at ort erm . H e w as r epar ol ed on J une 15, 2008, w hi ch r ai s es the ques t i on w hetherthi s appea l i s m oot . T he cas e- or - contr over s yr equi r ementcont i nues thr ough al l s t ages of fe der al j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , tr i al and appe l l at e, and r equi r es thatpart i es have a per s onal s t ake i n the ou t com e. L ew i s v. C on t i nen t al B ank C orp. , 49 4 U . S . 47 2, 47 7-478 (1990 ). G raves’ chal l enge i s notone t o an under l y i ng convi ct i on; how ever , even i f col l at er al cons equenc es ar e notpr es um ed, G r aves m ays t i l l avoi d a fi ndi ng of m ootnes s i f he c an s h o w a c o n t i n u i n g i n

j u r yth a ti s s u f

f i c i e n t . S p e n c e rv . K e m n a , 5 2 3 U . S . 1 , 1 4 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . We are sati sfied that h e h as d o n e so . L ibera ll yco n stru ing h is argu m en t, h e c lai m s tha t, w ere he t o pr evai l her e the C om m i s s i on’ s for fei tur e of hi s “s tr eett i m e” ( t i m e s penton par ol e) w oul d be i nval i dat ed and the ful l t erm dat e of hi s s ent ence ( the dat e unt i l w hi ch he w i l l be6

subjectt o p arol e supervis i on ) w ou l d ad van ce acco rdi ng l y . W hen G raves w as l ast r el eas ed on par ol e, hi s ful l t erm dat e w as J ul y1, 2008 ( i ns t ead of the curr entM ar ch 14, 20 14 ), and thu s he has sho w n a co l l at eral con sequen ce suffici ent t o k eep the con trovers y al i ve. T he part i es have notar gued otherw i s e.

T urni ng t o t he mer i t s , a court ’ s r ol e i n r evi ew i ng deci s i ons bythe U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on on an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i s l i m i t ed. See G ambi no v. M orr i s , 134 F. 3d 156, 160 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . T he appr opr i at e s t andar d of r e v i e w i s o n l y w h e th e rth e r e i s a r a t i o n a l b a s i s i n th e r e c o r d f o rth e C o m m i s s i o n 's concl us i ons embodi ed i n i t s s t at ementof r eas ons . I d. ( ci t i ng Z anni no v. A rnol d, 531 F. 2d 6 8 7 , 6 9 1 (3 d C ir.1 9 7 6 )). T h e c o u rt m u st o n lye n su re th a t th e C o m m iss io n ’s d e c isio n is n o t arb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s, n o r b a se d o n im p e rm iss ib le c o n sid e ra tio n s. Id . G ra v e s’ o n ly cont ent i on on appea l conce r ns the “unr el i abi l i ty ” of O ffi cerH eadr i ck’ s t es t i m onyt o the extenthe rel i ed u po n M rs . G raves’ and M r. H ow ard’ s ori ginal st at em ents .

I ti s cl earthe Par ol e C om m i s s i on had a r at i onal bas i s t o cr edi tthe t es t i m ony of O ffi cerH eadr i ck overM r s . G r aves ’ and M r . H ow ar d’ s l at erver s i on of eve nt s . T he pol i ce a rr i ved atthe s cene aft era 911 ca l l . A l l r es i dent s , i ncl udi ng G r aves , hi s w i fe, and hi s s t eps on, eventual l yexi t ed the bui l di ng. T he pol i ce r ecove r ed a f i r earm i n a tr as h can l ocat ed i n t he bas ementbathr oom undera s i nk, and i tw as M r s . G r aves w ho s how ed the offi certhe l ocat i on of the fi r earm . She gave a s t at ementatthe s cene w hi ch i ndi cat ed that G r aves had pos s es s i on of the gun atone poi ntdur i ng an i nci dentw hi ch i nvol ved beha vi orW h e n q u e s t i o n e d b yp o l i c e , Gr a v e s p r o v i d e d a s t a t e me n tth a ta n e i g h b o rh a d c o me 2 t o hi s hous e w i th a w eapon a nd thathe had ki cked the w eapon f r om the nei ghbor ’ s hand. I n hi s s ubs equentaff

i davi t , M r . H ow ar d s t at ed: 3 M ys t e p f a th e rp i c k e d u p th e g u n t o s h o w i tt o me a n d t o l d me th a t h e to o k it fro m a g u yth a t ra n o u t o f th e h o u se . I to ld h im t o putthe w eapon dow n unt i l I knew exac t l yw hatw as goi ng o n . M ys t e p f

a th e r. . . wa s j i t t e ry , r e p e a t i n g , “ l o o k a tth i s . ” He d id n o t p o in t th e w e a p o n a t m e . H e w a s m o re c o n c e rn e d w ith

7 thatcoul d be i nt erpr et ed as thr eat eni ng. M r . H ow ar d gave a s t at ementthathe r es ponded t o a ca l l forhel p fr om hi s m otherand emer ged fr om hi s bedr oom t o fi nd hi s s t epfa ther w i th a gun i n hi s hand. H e r etr i eved hi s s hot gun fr om hi s bedr oom , and, w hen G r aves r efus ed t o putthe gun dow n, fi r ed a w arni ng s hoti nt o the fl oor . O nl ythen di d G r aves put the gun dow n. 2

T he onl yevi dence of r ecor d cal l i ng i nt o ques t i on the r el i abi l i tyof O ffi cer H eadri ck’s t est i m on yand M rs . G raves’ and M r. H ow ard’ s ori ginal st at em ents are M rs . G ra v e s’ a n d M r. H o w a rd ’s s u b se q u e n t af f id a v its re c a n tin g . W e d o n o t b e liev e th e P a ro le C om m i s s i on act ed i r r at i onal l yi n di s cr edi t i ng thes e s ubs equentaff i davi t s . T he or i gi nal sta tem e n ts w e re g iv e n d u rin g th e h e a t o f th e m o m e n t, an d th u s lik e lyto b e tru th f u l, w her eas the l at ers t at ement s w er e gi ven once the par ol e r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs had com m enced and the h ars h real i tyof the probab l e break-up o f t he G raves’ fam i l y , as a r es ul tof G r aves ’ l i kel yr ei ncar cer at i on, began t o s i nk i n foral l conce rned. Fur therm or e, M r . H ow ar d’ s l at eraff

i davi ts t i l l put s the gun i n G r aves ’ hand underci r cumst ance s that m a d e M r . H o w a r d f

e a r f u l f o rh i s a n d h i s m o th e r ’ s s a f e ty. 3s how i ng m e the w eapon. I w as conce rned bec aus e he w as n e rv o u s a n d h o ld in g a g u n . F ro m m ye x p e rie n c e w ith w eapons , I knew thi s w as nota s afe s i tuat i on. I fi r ed a s hotof bi r ds hoti nt o the fl oor . N apol eon G r aves then s atdow n on th e c o u c h a n d to s s e d th e w e a p o n to th e s id e .” S e e A p p e lla n t’ s B ri e f

, A p p e n d ix “ B .” Fi nal l y , al though par ol ees have the r i ghtt o a r evoca t i on hear i ng atw hi ch theycan pr es entw i tnes s es and cr os s - exami ne adve r s e w i tnes s es , s ee M orr i s s eyv. B r ew er , 408 U . S. 471, 489 ( 1972) , G r aves w as notdepr i ved of hi s r i ghtt o cr os s - exami ne adver s e w i tnes s es , beca us e M r s . G r aves and M r . H ow ar d, havi ng r eca nt ed, w er e no l ongeradver s e t o hi m bythe t i m e of the r evoca t i on hear i ng.

F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt deny i ng G r aves ’ habea s corpus pet i t i on.