Anthony Bernardi v. United States, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Anthony Bernardi v. United States, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2020–2025 · …mccarthy's due process claim fails because he does not have a liberty interest in a transfer to a federal prison or a different state prison system. prison transfers do not implicate a liberty interest in the absence of state law suggesting otherwise. ⚠ not in text
89 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jeffrey Hall v. District Administrator Washington et al (ctd, 2025-11-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Jeffrey Hall v. District Administrator Washington et al
D. Conn. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
prison transfers do not implicate a liberty interest in the absence of state law suggesting otherwise.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Baltas v. Snyder
D. Conn. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
mccarthy's due process claim fails because he does not have a liberty interest in a transfer to a federal prison or a different state prison system. prison transfers do not implicate a liberty interest in the absence of state law suggesting otherwise.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Baltas v. Snyder
D. Conn. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
mccarthy's due process claim fails because he does not have a liberty interest in a transfer to a federal prison or a different state prison system. prison transfers do not implicate a liberty interest in the absence of state law suggesting otherwise.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Harvin v. Cheney
D. Conn. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
mccarthy's due process claim fails because he does not have a liberty interest in a transfer to a federal prison or a different state prison system. prison transfers do not implicate a liberty interest in the absence of state law suggesting otherwise.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Baltas v. Maiga
D. Conn. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
mccarthy's due process claim fails because he does not have a liberty interest in a transfer to a federal prison or a different state prison system. prison transfers do not implicate a liberty interest in the absence of state law suggesting otherwise.
discussed Cited "see" Abadi v. American Airlines Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
However, “the FTCA does not waive the Federal Government’s immunity with respect to claims for tortious interference.” Aryai v. Forfeiture Support Assocs., 25 F. Supp. 3d 376, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); see Epstein v. F.C.C., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996); Chen v. United States, 854 F.2d 622 , 628 n.2 (2d Cir. 1988); Murdock v. Microsoft Corp., 2015 WL 5460190 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Burke v. Lamont
D. Conn. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 1209 (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)); see McCarthy v. Teta, 101 F.3d 108 , 1996 WL 115330, at *2 (2d Cir. 1996) (unpublished decision) (New England Interstate Compact does not confer liberty interest on plaintiff); Carillo v. DuBois, 23 F. Supp. 2d 103, 108 (D.
discussed Cited "see" Dallio v. Hebert
N.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (extra liberal pleading standard set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 [1972], did not save pro se complaint from dismissal for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8); accord, Shoemaker v. State of Cal., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 ) [unpublished disposition cited only to acknowledge the continued precedential effect of Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 , within the Second Circuit]; accord, Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.1995). 29 .
discussed Cited "see" Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
S.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bigda v. Fischbach Corp., 898 F.Supp. 1004, 1013 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (“Caselaw is clear ... that where a party merely objects to an alleged breach but continues to perform and to accept the benefits of the breaching party’s performance under the contract, he will have elected to continue the contract.”), aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see" Vega v. Artus
N.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
P. 8); accord, Shoemaker v. State of Cal., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 ) [unpublished disposition cited only to acknowledge the continued precedential effect of Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 , within the Second Circuit]; accord, Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.1995). 10 .
discussed Cited "see" Cusamano v. Sobek
N.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1972) (extra liberal pleading standard set forth in Haines v. Kernmer, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 [1972], did not save pro se complaint from dismissal for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8); accord, Shoemaker v. State of Cal., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 ) [unpublished disposition cited only to acknowledge the continued precedential effect of Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 , within the Second Circuit]; accord, Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1995). 85 .
discussed Cited "see" Rabinowitz v. New York
E.D.N.Y · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
This doctrine “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 , 703 112 S.Ct.2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992); see Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, 101 F.3d 108 , 1996 WL 107300 (2d Cir.1996); American Airlines v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see" Fermin-Rodriguez v. Westchester County Jail Medical Personnel
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCarthy v. Teta, 101 F.3d 108 , text in 1996 WL 115330, at *2 (2d Cir.1996) (stating that prisoners do not “have a liberty interest in a transfer to a federal prison or a different state prison system”); Matter of Sindona, 584 F.Supp. 1437, 1443-44 (E.D.N.Y.1984) (stating that the due process clause “in and of itself does not protect a duly convicted prisoner against transfer from one institution to another within either the state or the federal prison system”).
discussed Cited "see" Elmasri v. England
E.D.N.Y · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
This doctrine “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 , 112 S.Ct. 2206 , 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992); see Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, 101 F.3d 108 , 1996 WL 107300 *2 (2d Cir.1996); American Airlines v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" Aragie Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keles v. Yale Univ., 889 F.Supp. 729, 735 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996); Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109-10 (4th Cir.1995).
cited Cited "see" Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keles v. Yale Univ., 889 F.Supp. 729, 735 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996); Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109-10 (4th Cir.1995).
cited Cited "see" Oei v. Citibank, N.A.
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bigda v. Fischbach Corp., 898 F.Supp. 1004, 1011 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Emmenegger v. Bull Moose Tube Co.
E.D. Mo. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bigda v. *294 Fischbach Corp., 898 F.Supp. 1004, 1016 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited "see" Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keles v. Yale University, 889 F.Supp. 729, 735 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (dismissing contract claim for failure to plead sufficient amount in controversy after dismissing fraud claim on the merits), aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996); see also Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 , once basis for federal diversity jurisdiction disappears, court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims). *105 Meskel claims that he was denied $1,538.40 in vacation pay, $8,250.00 in employer contributions to his annuity account, an…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bayon v. United States
W.D.N.Y. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute lies within the discretion of the district court.” Ali v. A & G Co., 542 F.2d 595, 596 (2d Cir. 1976); see also Diggs v. Eastman Kodak Co., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Genao v. Guanilo
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nov. 7, 2014), aff’d on other grounds, 645 F. App’x 103 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order); see also Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996) (unpublished decision) (“District courts in this Circuit have held that the exception includes civil rights actions directed at challenging the results of domestic relations proceedings.”); Block, 905 F.2d at 14 (“A federal court presented with matrimonial issues or issues ‘on the verge’ of being matrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roger of the Family Forrest Party Aggrieved v. 45 C.F.R. 75.2 IV-D Contractor Steve Banks
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nov. 7, 2014), aff’d on other grounds, 645 F. App’x 103 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order); see also Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 1996) (unpublished decision) (“District courts in this Circuit have held that the exception includes civil rights actions directed at challenging the results of domestic relations proceedings.”); Block, 905 F.2d at 14 (“A federal court presented with matrimonial issues or issues ‘on the verge’ of being matrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determin…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Genao v. Harriet Tubman P.S. 154
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nov. 7, 2014), aff'd on other grounds, 645 F. App’x 103 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order); see also Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996) (unpublished decision) (“District courts in this Circuit have held that the exception includes civil rights actions directed at challenging the results of domestic relations proceedings.”); Block, 905 F.2d at 14 (“A federal court presented with matrimonial issues or issues ‘on the verge’ of being matrimonial in nature should abstain from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in s…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bak v. Metro-North Railroad
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Incorporation Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co.; see also Celli v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 891 F.Supp. 124, 126 (S.D.N.Y.1995) aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bell v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Seymore v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 493 F.Supp. 257, 265 (S.D.N.Y.1980)("acts done in defense of an employee's contract rights ... are not insubordination and do not justify termination of employment"); see also Bigda v. Fischbach Corp., 898 F.Supp. 1004, 1017 (S.D.N.Y.1995) ("employees' pursuits of their contract rights cannot constitute disloyalty"), aff'd, 101 F.3d 108 , 1996 WL 107342 (2d Cir.1996); cf. Schwarze v. Solo Cup Co., 112 Ill.App.3d 632 , 68 Ill.Dec. 228 , 445 N.E.2d 872, 876 (1983)("It has long been recognized that a discharged *587 employee need not accept an offer of reempl…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony Bernardi
v.
United States
95-2640.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 14, 1996.
101 F.3d 108
Unpublished
2 passages pin-cited by 5 cases
Pinpoint authority: #15,767 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (5)

101 F.3d 108

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Anthony BERNARDI, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-2640.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 14, 1996.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo, NY.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: Joseph M. Guerra, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.

Before LUMBARD, MINER and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.

UPON CONSIDERATION of this appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

This cause came to be heard on the transcript of record and was submitted.

Petitioner-appellant Anthony Bernardi appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Skretny, J.) denying his motion to vacate or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

1

On April 1, 1993, Bernardi pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and the unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2).

2

On March 1, 1994, the district court sentenced Bernardi to a 12-month term of imprisonment, a five-year term of supervised release, and a $150 special assessment. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it would recommend that the term of imprisonment be served at the Buffalo Halfway House. Bernardi made no objections to the district court's sentence and did not appeal the sentence.

3

On March 28, 1994, Bernardi moved for an order modifying his sentence so that he could serve his term of imprisonment under home confinement, as opposed to community confinement at the Halfway House. On April 15, 1994, the district court denied Bernardi's motion.

4

On June 30, 1995, more than two years after he first was sentenced, Bernardi began to serve his sentence at the Halfway House. This delay was caused by the fact that a person against whom Bernardi had informed was incarcerated at the Halfway House. In August of 1995, Bernardi was transferred from the Halfway House to a federal prison camp because he allegedly had violated certain rules at the Halfway House.

5

In August of 1995, Bernardi filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence. As grounds for the motion, Bernardi alleged that the delay between the date he was sentenced and the date he began serving his sentence violated his due process rights and that his sentence violated certain provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. He requested as relief a sentence of home confinement for the remainder of his term of imprisonment. On August 31, 1995, the district court denied Bernardi's § 2255 motion.

6

On appeal, Bernardi claims that the district court violated U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(c)(3) by sentencing him to a term of community confinement without making the community confinement a condition of probation. Bernardi complains that the district court apparently did not consider him eligible for probation.

7

A § 2255 petition may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982). "A party who fails to raise an issue on direct appeal and subsequently endeavors to litigate the issue via a § 2255 petition must 'show that there was cause for failing to raise the issue, and prejudice resulting therefrom.' " United States v. Pipitone, 67 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Douglas v. United States, 13 F.3d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1993)). The Supreme Court has explained that " 'cause' ... must be something external to the petitioner, something that cannot be fairly attributed to him." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 753 (1991). Furthermore, "[a]ttorney ignorance or inadvertence is not 'cause' because the attorney is the petitioner's agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation, and the petitioner must bear the risk of attorney error." Id. (quotations omitted).

8

Because Bernardi failed to appeal from the 1994 judgment of the district court sentencing him principally to a twelve-month term of imprisonment, he cannot challenge his sentence now unless he can show good cause for not appealing. In his § 2255 petition before the district court, Bernardi stated that "[n]o notice of appeal was filed in this case since the sentence resulted from negotiations between [Bernardi's attorney] and the government[,] and [Bernardi's attorney] could hardly be expected to appeal the product of his own advocacy." This argument fails to satisfy the good cause requirement.

9

First, Bernardi cannot demonstrate good cause by blaming his attorney for not appealing the district court's sentence, because his attorney is his "agent" who failed to act "in furtherance of the litigation." Second, Bernardi's proffered cause is "fairly attributable to him." See Pipitone, 67 F.3d at 38 (stating that defense counsel's "ignorance of existing legal authority that arguably would have supported a downward departure for [the defendant] ... cannot justify [the defendant's] failure to take a direct appeal"). Moreover, Bernardi, in his briefs on this appeal, failed to provide any reason for not appealing the district court's judgment and sentence. Accordingly, Bernardi is barred from raising his claims before this Court.