Frederick Fillingham v. United States
867 F.3d 531
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Fillingham pleaded guilty in 1984 to importing marijuana and received sentences that included a term of special parole.
- Over years he committed other offenses, including a UK conviction (about nine years incarceration) for smuggling cocaine; the U.S. Parole Commission executed a revocation warrant in 2009 and revoked his special parole in 2010, imposing the maximum revocation term and denying credit for time on special parole.
- Fillingham filed a pro se § 2241 petition challenging his original conviction (ineffective assistance, unlawful seizure), the parole revocation (use of UK conviction, Ex Post Facto, due process), and denial of credit for foreign jail time; the district court dismissed the petition and he appealed.
- The district court dismissed several claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and held other claims not cognizable under § 2241 (should be raised under § 2255 or administratively).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Fillingham failed to exhaust some claims, rejected his constitutional challenges to the Commission’s actions, held the Commission could reimpose special parole post-revocation, and denied requested relief and counsel/compensation motions.
Issues
| Issue | Fillingham's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion for IAC and Ex Post Facto claims | These claims may be raised in § 2241 now; exhaustion not required or excused | Prisoner must exhaust Commission/BOP remedies; no showing of futility | Affirmed dismissal for failure to exhaust (no exception shown) |
| Authority to reimpose special parole / Ex Post Facto | Artuso prevents reimposition of special parole; reimposition retroactively punished him (Ex Post Facto) | Johnson abrogates Artuso’s reasoning; conversion restored original supervision; no retroactive law change | Court adopts Rich reasoning: Commission may reimpose special parole; no Ex Post Facto violation |
| Use of foreign (UK) conviction in parole revocation / due process | Commission lacked authority to revoke based on foreign conviction; revocation deprived due process | Foreign conviction is generally permissible evidence; revocation standard is "some evidence" and lesser than criminal prosecution | Affirmed: UK conviction was some evidence; due process requirements satisfied |
| Credit for foreign jail time / Double Jeopardy / §3585 | Denial of UK-time credit and revocation punished him twice; younger statute inapplicable | Double jeopardy does not apply to parole revocation; foreign imprisonment not custody "in connection with" U.S. offense for credit | Affirmed: no double jeopardy, and no credit under §3568/§3585 because UK custody not for the federal offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Artuso v. Hall, 74 F.3d 68 (5th Cir. 1996) (held Commission could not reimpose special parole under earlier reasoning)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (interpreted "revoke" in supervised-release context and allowed reimposition)
- Rich v. Maranville, 369 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (held Johnson abrogated Artuso-like reasoning and allowed reimposition of special parole)
- Villarreal v. United States Parole Comm’n, 985 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1993) (parole revocation review requires only "some evidence")
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due-process framework for parole revocation)