Opinion ID: 4448072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: we lack jurisdiction over orie’s

Text: ETHICS ACT CLAIM Orie is not in custody for her Pennsylvania Ethics Act convictions. We thus lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of her claim that the Ethics Act is unconstitutionally vague. 7 A federal court has habeas jurisdiction only if the petitioner is “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). She is in custody when she suffers a “non-negligible restraint on [her] physical liberty” because of a particular conviction. Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas, 917 F.3d 161, 166 (3d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). We gauge custody for each offense independently. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–92 (1989). In other words, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses can be in custody for one but not for another. Orie was sentenced to “[n]o further penalty” on her Ethics Act convictions. App. 1066a. She received no sentence of incarceration or confinement of any kind on those counts. So Orie suffered no physical restraint and thus was never in custody for these offenses. Orie claims she was in custody for her Ethics Act convictions because she suffered one “general sentence” for all her offenses. Appellant’s Br. 24. But her sentencing order imposed a discrete sentence for each count of conviction. And the order said that she would not be punished beyond a determination of guilt for her Ethics Act convictions. Orie also argues that she was in custody for her Ethics Act convictions because her conspiracy and theft-of-services convictions were “predicated” on her Ethics Act convictions. Id. This argument fails as well. Her conspiracy conviction was predicated instead on her agreement to commit theft of services. And the theft-of-services statute does not depend on any other offense. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3926(b). Her convictions may have been based on the same behavior, but Orie’s Ethics Act convictions were separate from her other convictions. She 8 is in custody for her conspiracy and theft-of-services convictions, not her Ethics Act convictions. We thus lack habeas jurisdiction over her Ethics Act claim.