USA v. Joe Hardy

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Joe Kendrick Hardy. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-13180

Date Filed: 01/06/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13180
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-00143-WHA-SRW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE KENDRICK HARDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(January 6, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-13180

Date Filed: 01/06/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Joe Kendrick Hardy appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment
following the revocation of his supervised release. Hardy argues that he was
entitled to credit for time served in the custody of state officials before he was
transferred to a federal prison to serve his sentence for being a felon in possession
of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Hardy also argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court lacked authority to credit Hardy for time he allegedly
served in state custody. See id. After a defendant begins serving his sentence, the
Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, has exclusive authority to
determine whether the defendant has spent time in official detention and to
compute the amount of credit to which he is entitled. Dawson v. Scott, 50 F.3d 884,
889 (11th Cir. 1995). The Attorney General “make[s] the determination as an
administrative matter when imprisoning the defendant.” United States v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). If Hardy had been “dissatisfied with the computation of
[his] sentence [for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he had to] pursue the
administrative remedy available through the federal prison system before seeking
judicial review of his sentence.” United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544, 1546
(11th Cir. 1989).
During his revocation hearing, Hardy did not request judicial review of the
denial of credit; instead, he requested that the district court exercise “equitable
2

Case: 16-13180

Date Filed: 01/06/2017

Page: 3 of 4

consideration” and reduce his sentence under section 3585(b). But the district
court could not award Hardy credit or take into account the time he allegedly
served in determining what sentence to impose for his multiple violations of the
conditions of his supervised release.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Hardy to 24
months of imprisonment. Hardy had a criminal history category of VI when he was
convicted for possessing a firearm as a felon and within six months of completing
his prison sentence, he had, the district court stated, “made a mockery of [the]
intention[s] [of supervised release].” Hardy violated the condition that he remain in
Alabama by traveling to Tennessee, where he was cited for the misdemeanor
offense of possessing synthetic cannabinoids and later failed to appear for a
hearing on the charge, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3) (identifying violations of state
law and of conditions of supervised release as Grade C violations). Three months
later, Hardy travelled unlawfully to North Carolina where he purchased and
transported in a rental vehicle 33 pounds of synthetic cannabis from New York, for
which he later was convicted of trafficking synthetic marijuana. See id.
§ 7B1.1(a)(1) (identifying controlled substance offenses as Grade A violations).
Although Hardy faced a minimum sentence of 33 months under the advisory
guidelines, the statute governing revocation limited his penalty to 24 months of
imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court reasonably
3

Case: 16-13180

Date Filed: 01/06/2017

Page: 4 of 4

determined that the maximum statutory sentence best addressed, in its words, “all
the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553.” Hardy’s sentence is reasonable.
We AFFIRM Hardy’s sentence.

4