Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Michael C. Antonelli v. United States Parole Commission
Citations: 16 F.3d 1225; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 33591; 1993 WL 533319Docket: 93-1858
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; December 21, 1993; Federal Appellate Court
Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) restricts the citation of unpublished orders as precedent, except for specific legal claims. Michael C. Antonelli, the petitioner, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging rights violations by the United States Parole Commission during his parole revocation. The court affirmed the dismissal, referencing the district court's detailed opinion. Antonelli, currently in state custody for aggravated arson, had been paroled from federal sentences for various serious offenses in 1989. Post-release, the Parole Commission found him in violation of parole due to multiple administrative violations and failure to appear in state court, resulting in a total of 28 months of additional incarceration. In his habeas petition, Antonelli argued that he faced selective and vindictive prosecution, that the Commission's actions violated double jeopardy principles, and that his release date was incorrectly set. He also claimed a violation of due process due to the absence of certain witnesses at the hearing. The government countered that Antonelli failed to substantiate claims of vindictive prosecution, that double jeopardy does not apply in parole revocation, the release date issue was resolved, and due process was not violated regarding witness production. The court supported the government's position, concluding Antonelli did not provide adequate allegations to substantiate his claims, particularly regarding selective or vindictive prosecution. Antonelli has not provided specific evidence to substantiate his claims that the Commission acted selectively or vindictively in revoking his parole due to administrative violations and a failure to appear in court. His arguments consist solely of conclusory statements and subjective fears, lacking factual support for any improper motivations by the Commission. Despite submitting numerous documents, these are primarily self-serving and do not constitute hard evidence. The Commission's addition of a six to twelve month sentence for the failure to appear in court did not violate double jeopardy, as parole violation proceedings are not subject to this prohibition. The actions leading to his revocation, including administrative violations and state law infractions, are considered distinct violations of parole. Antonelli's assertion that the Commission miscalculated his release date is moot, as it was recently adjusted in his favor. His argument that Detective Jim Brown should have testified at the revocation hearing was rejected, as the Commission fulfilled its obligation to present relevant witnesses, and Brown's testimony would not have contributed to their decision. Furthermore, Antonelli's claim that his violations were justified by compulsion and necessity does not meet the legal threshold, which requires a reasonable fear of immediate harm. The Commission did not find him guilty of aggravated arson, and the alleged errors regarding witness testimony were deemed irrelevant to the revocation outcome. Consequently, the United States’s motion to dismiss Antonelli's habeas corpus petition is granted, resulting in its dismissal. The case was decided without oral argument, as indicated by the absence of any request for it from the parties involved.