Filed: Oct. 17, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-17-2006 Razzoli v. Allenwood FCI Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1312 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Razzoli v. Allenwood FCI" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 319. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/319 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinio
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-17-2006 Razzoli v. Allenwood FCI Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1312 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Razzoli v. Allenwood FCI" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 319. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/319 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinion..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-17-2006
Razzoli v. Allenwood FCI
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1312
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Razzoli v. Allenwood FCI" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 319.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/319
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BPS-356
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-1312
_________
KEVIN RAZZOLI,
Appellant
v.
FCI ALLENWOOD; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION;
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BRONX NEW YORK;
U.S. NAVY
_____________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil. No. 04-cv-02495)
District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 28, 2006
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
(Filed October 17, 2006 )
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________________
PER CURIAM
In 1987, Razzoli was convicted of attempted murder and other offenses by a Navy
Court Martial and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.1 Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 858,
he was transferred to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to serve his
sentence. He was paroled in 2001, but he violated the terms of his parole and it was
revoked. He was re-paroled in September 2002, but again had his parole revoked for
using drugs.
In December 2003, Razzoli was again released on parole to a halfway house in
New York City. He left the halfway house without permission and a warrant was issued
for his arrest, charging him with violating the terms of his parole and using drugs. He
was arrested on the warrant in February 2004.2 He waived a revocation hearing,
accepting an expedited revocation of his parole, with a re-parole date of September 28,
2004.
Just before his re-parole date, Razzoli was involved in an altercation with his case
manager. Razzoli yelled at the case manager and threatened to sue him and have his
assets frozen. He was found guilty by a disciplinary hearing officer of interfering with a
staff member in the performance of his duties. As a result of this misconduct, his parole
date was retarded by 60 days, making his new effective parole date November 27, 2004.
On November 8, 2004, Razzoli filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28
1
It appears from Razzoli’s sentencing computational data that he committed his
offense on October 15, 1986. As a result, his case is governed by the old parole law.
2
During the time between when Razzoli first left the halfway house and when he was
arrested for his parole violation, it appears that he was convicted in New York State court
for a minor drug possession offense.
2
U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
In his petition, Razzoli claimed that: 1) under his expedited revocation agreement he
should have been immediately placed in a halfway house and had his sentence reduced; 2)
the probation officers who arrested him in February 2004 had no authority to make an
arrest; 3) the Parole Commission conspired to retaliate against him for filing a previous
lawsuit by revoking his parole; 4) the staff at FCI-Allenwood retaliated against him by
falsifying the September 2004 misconduct for which Razzoli was disciplined; and 5) he
was illegally deprived of his annual Naval clemency hearings because he was placed
under the jurisdiction of the BOP. During the pendency of the case, the Parole
Commission repeatedly postponed the date of Razzoli’s re-parole by denying his release
plans. Razzoli claimed that the repeated rejections were a pretext to prevent him from
ever being released on parole.
On January 11, 2006, the District Court dismissed Razzoli’s petition. Razzoli
appealed. In July 2006, the Parole Commission approved one of Razzoli’s release plans,
and he was released on parole.3 Because we find that Razzoli’s appeal presents no
substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See Third
Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
Razzoli’s claim that the 2004 expedited revocation agreement mandated his
3
However, he once again ran afoul of the law and was arrested in Scranton,
Pennsylvania, for theft of services. The Parole Commission issued a warrant for his arrest
in August.
3
immediate release and a reduction in his sentence is based on an obvious forgery which
he attached to the actual agreement. (See Habeas Pet. at 13.) Further, this claim has
already been adjudicated by the Eastern District of New York. See Razzoli v. Zenk, No.
04-cv-1269, slip op. at 7 (E.D. N.Y. July 14, 2004). Thus, bringing the claim again at this
time is barred by the doctrine of abuse of the writ. See Zayas v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 247, 258
(3d Cir. 2002).
Razzoli asserts that his 2004 parole revocation was the result of illegal retaliation.
He claims that the BOP retaliated against him for past legal actions by revoking his
parole. However, he produces no evidence of any causal link between his previous
lawsuits and his parole revocation. See Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir.
2003). The legal actions that he mentions in his habeas petition occurred prior to his 2003
grant of parole and he provides no evidence to rebut the Appellees’ claim that his parole
was revoked solely because he disappeared from the halfway house and used drugs. See
Rauser v. Horn,
241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001).
Razzoli’s argument that the probation agents did not have authority to arrest him in
February 2004 is also without merit. The officers clearly had authority to arrest him for
violating his parole in 2004. The probation officers acted pursuant to a valid warrant and,
under 28 C.F.R. § 2.46(a), have the power to enforce such a warrant. See also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3606 (“If there is probable cause to believe that a probationer or a person on supervised
release has violated a condition of his probation or release, he may be arrested . . . [a]
4
probation officer may make such an arrest wherever the probationer or releasee is
found”). Razzoli is unable to point to any contrary authority that would support his
position.
Razzoli claims that he is entitled to annual Naval clemency hearings. But the only
authority that Razzoli cites as the basis for this claim is, in fact, the authority upon which
the BOP’s exclusive jurisdiction over him rests. Section 858(a) of Title 10 of the United
States Code states: “[p]ersons so confined in a penal or correctional institution not under
the control of one of the armed forces are subject to the same discipline and treatment as
persons confined or committed by the courts of the United States or of the State, District
of Columbia, or place in which the institution is situated.” Thus, under the terms of his
sentence, he is under the jurisdiction of BOP and not entitled to different treatment
because he was convicted by a Navy court martial.
Finally, Razzoli’s claims that his release on parole has been illegally delayed are
moot. The function of habeas corpus is to provide release from illegal custody. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973); 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Through the passage
of time Razzoli has been released on parole, thereby obtaining the relief that he sought
through habeas. 4 See Lane v. Williams,
455 U.S. 624, 633 (1984). Accordingly, his
4
Although Razzoli appears to be incarcerated once again, this fact does not change the
disposition of his habeas petition. Razzoli sought release on parole, and has been
released. He is now in custody for a different reason, his 2006 parole violation, that was
obviously not the subject of his 2004 habeas petition.
5
claims that his September 2004 discipline was illegal retaliation and that the Parole
Commission unlawfully denied his previous release plans are moot.
In short, upon consideration of the submissions in this case, we conclude that his
appeal presents us with no substantial question. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P.
10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
6
