Court Opinion

ID: 2963711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:11.161121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.974260
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 24, 1995  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1696

                                  EDMUND M. HURLEY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  BUREAU OF PRISONS,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             James P. Duggan for appellant.
             _______________
             John A. Capin, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Donald
             _____________                                              ______
        K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        ________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.   Edmund H. Hurley appeals  a summary judg-
                    Per Curiam
                    __________

          ment order disallowing his claim  for damages, attorney fees, and

          costs  against the  Bureau  of Prisons  (the "Bureau")  under the

          Privacy  Act of  1974,  5 U.S.C.     552a(e)(5), (g)(1)(C).    We

          affirm, substantially for the reasons relied upon by the district

          court.  See  Hurley v.  Bureau of Prisons,  No. 94-10966-RCL  (D.
                  ___  ______     _________________

          Mass. May 18, 1995). 

                    In July  1990, Hurley  was convicted of  defrauding the

          United States, see  18 U.S.C.    371, and sentenced to  an eight-
                         ___

          month term of  confinement.  Although  the sentence exceeded  the

          six-month maximum, see  18 U.S.C.   3651  (repealed 1987), Hurley
                             ___

          did  not appeal the sentence.  This court affirmed his conviction

          in United States v.  Hurley, 957 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
             _____________     ______                         _____ ______

          113 S. Ct. 60 (1992).  

                    Shortly after Hurley began serving his term of confine-

          ment  in May 1992, the Bureau noted that the eight-month sentence

          exceeded the  statutory maximum, whereupon it  advised Hurley and

          telephoned the Assistant United  States Attorney ("AUSA") who had

          tried  the case.   Although  both the  AUSA and  Hurley's counsel

          promptly  moved to  correct  the sentence,  the sentencing  court

          denied both motions.  In addition, pending appeal of the district

          court order  denying Hurley's  requests to correct  the sentence,

          the  Bureau declined Hurley's request that he be allowed to serve

          the last two months  of his prison term in  a halfway house.   As

          grounds  therefor,  the Bureau  cited  the  PSR's description  of

                                          2

          Hurley's  money  laundering activities  (i.e.,  in  excess of  $5

          million), to which no objection had been asserted by Hurley.  

                    On October 14, 1992, this court vacated the eight-month

          sentence  and directed  Hurley's immediate  release.   See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States v.  Hurley, No. 92-2125 (1st Cir. Oct. 14, 1995).  By that
          ______     ______

          time, however, he had already served seventeen days more than the

          six-month maximum term.

                    Hurley sued  the Bureau  for damages under  the Privacy

          Act,  which requires  federal agencies  "to maintain  all records

          which  are used by the  agency in making  any determination about

          any individual  with  such accuracy,  relevance, timeliness,  and

          completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the

          individual in the determination."  5 U.S.C.   552a(e)(5).  Hurley

          alleged that the Bureau wrongfully  relied on the district  court

          judgment imposing the eight-month  sentence, knowing the sentence

          to be "inaccurate," and that the  Bureau had failed to follow its

          own internal  procedures for  reporting illegal sentences  to the

          AUSA.  These  contentions were properly rejected  by the district

          court.

                    The  district court  judgment accurately  reflected the

          sentence imposed by the  sentencing court, and the Bureau  had no

          obligation     indeed no right    to disregard the sentence until

          the  sentencing  court  or  the court  of  appeals  corrected it.

          Similarly,  the  claimed  deviation  from  Bureau  procedures    

          namely, placing a telephone call to the AUSA, rather than writing

          a  letter    was inconsequential.  At most, any procedural devia-

                                          3

          tion expedited  the correction of Hurley's sentence,  and, in all
               _________

          events, it caused Hurley no injury.  Indeed, Hurley concedes that
                     ______

          the  AUSA promptly moved to correct  the sentence, once notified.

          No more was exigible from the Bureau.

                    Finally, Hurley  alleged that the  Bureau violated  the

          Privacy Act by relying on the "inaccurate" PSR description of his

          money laundering activities in denying his request for a "halfway

          house"  placement.   Hurley neither  objected  to the  PSR before

          sentencing,  nor on the appeal  from his conviction.   See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States v.  Hurley, 957  F.2d  1, 4  (1st Cir.  1992).   Any  such
          ______     ______

          inaccuracy in the PSR  should have been brought to  the attention

          of the district court  at sentencing; or,  at the very least,  on

          appeal from his conviction  and sentence.  See  Fed. R. Crim.  P.
                                                     ___

          32(c)(3)(D) (1987)  (requiring sentencing  court to make  written

          factual  findings concerning  any objections  to PSR,  and append

          them to copy of  PSR made available to Bureau),  repromulgated at
                                                 ______    _____________ __

          Fed. R. Crim. 32(c)(1) (1995). 

                    Affirmed. 
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                          4