Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CHATTERJEE v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMN.

February 23, 1990

SAMAR CHATTERJEE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants


Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHADUR

MILTON I. SHADUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC") Warden Mark Henry and the United States Parole Commission ("Commission") have submitted the Response of the United States (the "Response") to the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Section 2241") habeas corpus petition (the "Petition") filed pro se by Samar Chatterjee ("Chatterjee"). Chatterjee has in turn retorted with a self-prepared one-page "Motion To Grant Petition." *fn2" As permitted by Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ("Rules"), this Court elects to apply those Rules to this Section 2241 action. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, this Court finds there is no need for discovery (Rule 6), expansion of the record (Rule 7) or an evidentiary hearing (Rule 8(a)). Chatterjee's Petition is denied.

 Facts3

 Following Chatterjee's guilty plea to three counts of a 32-count indictment charging an extensive and extended series of mail frauds, on February 6, 1989 this Court's colleague Honorable John Nordberg sentenced Chatterjee to:

 
1. four years in the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2)("Section 4205(b)(2)"), less credit for time already served,
 
2. to be followed by a five-year probationary period,
 
3. subject to a judgment of restitution of $ 220,000.

 Initially Judge Nordberg's contemporaneous Form AO-235 Report on Committed Offender stated as his reason for sentencing Chatterjee to a custody term above the applicable estimated parole guidelines: *fn4"

 
1. Aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense behavior (including any characteristics that affect your view of this defendant's role in the offense):
 
Defendant has not indicated remorse by willingness to make restitution from foreign funds in his name.

 Judge Nordberg's AO-235 Report continued in part with this statement under "Other Comments":

 
After defendant has made restitution, the Court recommends immediate parole since defendant has satisfactorily served over 18 months in custody.

 Chatterjee then pursued his right (made applicable to pre-November 1, 1987 offenses under the then-existing version of Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(b)) to seek a reduction in his sentence. On April 27, 1989 Judge Nordberg revised his evaluation of Chatterjee in another AO-235 Report (which began by saying "Please disregard prior Report of February 6, 1989"):

 
1. Aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense behavior (including any characteristics that affect your view of this defendant's role in the offense):
 
Defendant has not indicated full remorse, but greater remorse indicated in Defendant's Rule 35 motion hearing.

 Judge Nordberg's "Other Comments" in the new AO-235 Report read this way:

 
Please disregard prior AO-235 report of 2/6/89. Without regard to any payment of restitution, the Court recommends early parole, upon a showing of genuine remorse, because the defendant has ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.