Harding-Tubbs v. USA

Filing 8

RULING AND ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Leta Harding-Tubbs. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 12/26/13. (Glynn, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LETA HARDING-TUBBS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
V.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-CV-1130 (RNC)

RULING & ORDER
Petitioner brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) calculation of her
federal sentence.1

She alleges that the BOP improperly failed to

provide her with credit toward her federal sentence, which was to
run concurrently with her state sentence.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), which governs the
calculation of federal terms of imprisonment, a federal sentence
begins when the defendant "is received in custody awaiting
transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of
sentence at, the official detention facility at which the
sentence is to be served."

A federal sentence cannot commence

before it is imposed at the time of sentencing.

Sawyer v. Fed.

Bureau of Prisons, No. 3:09CV1747 (MRK), 2010 WL 2574112, at *2
(D. Conn. Apr. 20, 2010).

1

Thus, petitioner is eligible to

Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Danbury, Connecticut at the time she filed this
action. Since then, she has been granted an unescorted furlough
to report to a halfway house for the remainder of her sentence.
See Def.'s Resp., ECF No. 6, at 2.

receive credit for her federal sentence beginning on the date it
was imposed: November 17, 2011.

United States v. Harding-Tubbs,

No. 1:11-CR-00182(CMA) (D. Colo. Nov. 28, 2011)(judgment, noting
November 17, 2011 as date imposed).

This is the date the BOP

relied on in its sentence computation.

See Sentence Monitoring

Computation Data, Attach. to Pet., ECF No. 1, at 11.
Petitioner is not eligible to receive credit for time spent
in federal custody prior to the imposition of her federal
sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) prohibits a defendant from

receiving credit toward service of a federal term of imprisonment
for time that has been credited against another sentence.
Petitioner was sentenced in state court on June 6, 2011; any time
spent in federal custody between then and November 17 was
credited toward her state sentence and thus could not be credited
toward her federal sentence.2

See United States v. Mercedes, No.

99 CR. 1142 SAS, 2007 WL 766306, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2007)
("Because Mercedes received credit for his state sentence while
he was physically in federal custody, he is not entitled to any
credit under section 3585.

In any event, this Court cannot

order the BOP to provide credit against a federal sentence based
on prior state incarceration.").
That petitioner's federal sentence of 35 months was to run

2

The record does not indicate, nor does petitioner allege,
that she was in federal custody before the date her state
sentence was imposed.
2

concurrently with her state sentence means that she was entitled
to receive credit toward her federal sentence beginning November
17, 2011 — the day she was sentenced in federal court — even
though she was simultaneously serving and receiving credit for
her state sentence.

(In contrast, under a consecutive sentence,

the 35-month period would not have started to run until after the
completion of her state sentence.)

Even if petitioner's state

sentence finishes before her 35-month federal sentence is
complete, she must nonetheless serve the remainder of her
concurrent federal sentence.

The record indicates that

petitioner has properly received credit for her federal sentence.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is hereby denied.
Clerk may close the file.
So ordered this 26th day of December, 2013.

/s/RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United Stated District Judge

3

The