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 Third C ir c uit 3-8-2005 

# Furn ari v . U S P arole C omm P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2109

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " Furn ari v . U S P aro le C omm" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1464. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/1464NOT 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- 2109

____________ C H R IS T O P H E R F U R N A R I, A ppel l ant v. U. S . P AR OL E CO M M I S S I ON; WARDE N F CI AL L E NWOOD

____________ 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 . N o. 03- cv- 02046) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

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

J anuary27, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed : M ar ch 8, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antC hr i s t opherFur nar i ( “Furnar i ”) , an i nm at e ata medi um s ecur i tyFeder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on, l ocat ed i n A l l enw ood, Penns y l vani a, appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ct2

C o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is p e titio n f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . Fur nar i w as convi ct ed of va r i ous offe ns es r el at i ng t o hi s i nvol vementi n or gani zed c r i m e, and r ece i ved a 100- y ears ent ence , cons i s t i ng of fi ve cons ecut i ve 20- y eart erm s and sev era l add it ion al co n cu rren t t erm s. W e a ff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f F u rna ri ’s habea s pet i t i on. I . St andard of R evi ew and G overni ng L aw I n a fe der al habea s corpus pr ocee di ng, thi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew of the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s . W il so n v. U n itedS tates P a ro le C o m m ’n , 193 F. 3d 195, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A s t o thi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , “[t ] he i nqui ryi s notw hetherthe [Com m i s s i on’ s deci s i on] i s s uppor t ed bythe p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , o r e v e n b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e ; th e in q u iryis o n ly w hetherther e i s a r at i onal bas i s i n the r ecor d forthe [Com m i s s i on’ s ] concl us i ons embodi ed i n i t s s t at ementof r eas ons . ” Za n n in o v . A rn o ld , 5 3 1 F . 2 d 6 8 7 , 6 9 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 4206( a) , i f an e l i gi bl e pr i s onerhas s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i th the rul es of the i ns t i tut i on ori ns t i tut i ons t o w hi ch he ha s been c onfi ned, and i f the C om m i s s i on, “upon cons i der at i on of the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the pr i s oner , ” det erm i nes ( i ) thatr el eas e w oul d not depr eci at e the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e orpr om ot e di s r es pectforthe l aw ; and ( i i ) that re lea se w o u ld n o t jeo p a rd ize th e p u b lic w e lf a re , su b jec t to o th e r lim itatio n s c o n tain e d in3

thi s s ect i on, the pr i s oners hal l be r el eas ed. 18 U . S. C . § 4206( a) . T he Par ol e C om m i s s i on has adopt ed gui del i nes forpar ol e r el eas e cons i der at i on i ndi cat i ng the cus t om aryr ange of t i m e t o be s erved bef

or e r el eas e forvar i ous combi nat i ons of off ens e ( s ever i ty ) and o f f e n d e r (p a ro le p ro g n o sis ) c h a ra c ter istics . 2 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 (b ). T h e g u id e lin e s c o n tain in stru c tio n s f

o r th e ra tin g o f

c e rta in o f

f e n se b e h a v io rs; h o w e v e r, w h e re e sp e c ially m i t i gat i ng oraggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s exi s t , a dec i s i on ors ever i tyr at i ng di ffe r entfr om th a t lis te d m a yb e ju s tif ie d . I d. § 2 0 (d). I I . D i s cus s i on T he fa ctual backgr ound of thi s act i on, w hi ch i s l engthyand compl i cat ed, w as th o r o u g h l yd i s c u s s e d b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r ta n d i s k n o wn t o th e p a r t i e s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l focus i n thi s opi ni on on the r at i onal e forourdeci s i on. In its M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 o rd e r, th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied F u rn a ri’s p e tit io n f o r a w rit of habe as corpus . O n appea l , Fur nar i ar gues thatthe Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s r el i ance on conductotherthan the off ens e of hi s convi ct i on t o s etthe off ens e s ever i tyl evel vi ol at ed the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s rul es and D ue Pr oces s . Speci fi cal l y , the conduc tr el i ed upon in c lu d e d F u rn a ri’s a lleg e d in v o lv e m e n t in m u rd e rs a n d a n a ttem p ted m u rd e r d u e to h is r o l e a s a “ c o n s i g l i e r e ” i n a c r i m e f a m i l y. T h e P a ro le C o m m iss io n h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n to re v iew m a ter ials h e lp f u l in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r t o re le a s e a p ri s o n e r o n p a ro le . U ni t ed Stat es ex r el . G oldber g v. Wa r d e n , A l l e n wo o d

Fe d . P r is o n Ca mp , 6 2 2 F .2 d 6 0 , 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 0 ); see al so F i um ara4

v. O ’ B r i en , 889 F. 2d 254, 257- 58 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( hol di ng Par ol e C om m i s s i on di d not ab u se d iscreti o n w h ere itco n side red ev iden ce o f p ri so n er’s inv o lvem en t of fo u r m u rde rs f o r w h ich h e w a s n o t co n v icte d a n d d e n ied p a ro le) ; H a c ke tt v. U

n itedS ta tes P a ro le C o m m ’n , 8 5 1 F .2 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 0 -3 1 (6 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (h o ld in g P a ro le C o m m iss io n p ro p e rly cons i der ed vi ct i m i m pacts t at ement , w hi ch al l eged pr i s onerr aped vi ct i m dur i ng abduct i on f o r w h ich h e w a s im p riso n e d , fo r p u rp o se s o f p a ro le d e c isio n ); M

addox v. U

ni t ed Stat es P a ro le C o m m ’n , 8 2 1 F . 2 d 9 9 7 , 9 9 9 -10 0 0 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (no ti n g P aro le C o m m issi o n ’s b ro a d a u th o rityin m a ter ials it co n sid e rs f o r p a ro le d e c isio n s, in c lu d in g d ism iss e d c o u n ts of an i ndi ctm ent , hear s ayevi dence , and al l egat i ons of cr i m i nal act i vi tyforw hi ch pr i s oner w a s n o t ev e n c h a rg e d ); Melvi n v. P etr ovs ky , 720 F. 2d 9, 10 ( 8th C i r . 1983) ( fi ndi ng Par ol e C om m i s s i on notl i m i t ed t o i ndi ctm entand convi ct i on i n det erm i ni ng s ever i tyof o f f e n s e a n d c a n c o n s id e r o th e r r e lia b le in f o rm a tio n , in c lu d in g p re s e n te n c e re p o rt ). In d e e d , C o n g re ss h a s e v e n a u th o riz e d th e C o m m iss io n to v iew p re se n ten c e re p o rts “des pi t e the know l edge that‘ [t ] her e ar e no form al l i m i t at i ons on thei rcont ent s and they ma yr e s to n h e a r s a ya n d c o n t a i n i n f o r ma t i o n b e a r i n g n o r e l a t i o n wh a t e v e rt o th e c r i me w i th w hi ch the def

endanti s char ged. ’ ” I

d. at64 ( ci t i ng G r egg v. U ni t ed Stat es , 39 4 U. S. 4 8 9 , 4 9 2 (19 6 9 )). B eca us e the Par ol e C om m i s s i on has br oad di s cr et i on i n the mat er i al s i tcan cons i deri n m aki ng par ol e dec i s i ons , the C om m i s s i on w as w i thi n i t s author i tyi n r el y i ng upon conductotherthan the off ens e of Furnar i ’ s convi ct i on, i ncl udi ng hi s al l eged5

i nvol vementi n m ur der s and an a t t empt ed murde rforw hi ch he w as nei therchar ged nor c o n v icte d . M o re o v e r, th e C o m m iss io n ’s r e lian c e u p o n th is c o n d u c t d id n o t v io late F urnari ’s ri gh tt o D ue P rocess . G eneral l y , t o sat i sfyD ue P rocess , parol e proced ures m ust p rov ide a n o p p o rtu n ityto b e h ea rd a n d a statem en t of rea so n s fo r th e C o m m issi o n ’s d e c is io n . See G r eenhol t zv. I nm at es of

N eb. P enal

& Corr . C om

pl ex , 442 U . S. 1, 16 ( 1979) . T he C om m i s s i on’ s r el i ance upon Fur nar i ’ s al l eged i nvol vementi n thes e other m urders and at t em pted m urder di d n ot i m pli cat e ei ther of these r i gh t s. F u rn a ri a d d iti o n a llyc h a llen g e s th e P a ro le C o m m iss io n ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s w ith r es pectt o hi s al l eged i nvol vementi n thes e otherm ur der s . T hi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfocus es on w hetherther e i s a r at i onal bas i s i n the re c o rd f o r t h e C o m m is s io n ’s c o n c lu s io n s e m b o d ie d in its s ta te m e n t o f re a s o n s . Zanni no , 5 3 1 F . 2 d at 69 1 . O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd a ssu res u s tha t a rati o n al ba sis i n the re co rd exis t ed fo r the C om m i ssi on ’s con cl usi on s. Forthes e r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of Furnar i ’ s pet i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus.

________________________