Williams v. Maye

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The petition for habeas corpus is denied. Petitioner's motions 4 & 11 to expedite are denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 9/19/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Martin T. Williams by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARTIN T. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 13-3005-RDR

CLAUDE MAYE,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a prisoner in federal custody, proceeds
pro se. He challenges the execution of his sentence.
Factual background
Petitioner is serving a 46-month sentence for Felon in Possession
of a Firearm imposed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin. At the December 15, 2009, sentencing,
the sentencing judge imposed a hybrid sentence, ordering petitioner’s
federal term to be “46 months, with 16 months running concurrently
and 30 months running consecutively to the sentence in State of
Wisconsin (Milwaukee County) Case No. 02-CF-4590.” In addition, the
court recommended that the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) designate
the state correctional facility for service of the concurrent portion
of the federal sentence and placement in a facility as close to
Milwaukee as possible. (Doc. 7, Attach. 2, Exs. D & F, Judgment &
Commitment Order.)
Following sentencing, petitioner was returned to the custody of
Wisconsin authorities for service of his state sentence. A detainer

was lodged. Id., Ex. G, Detainer.
In

November

2011,

petitioner

unsuccessfully

sought

a

modification of his federal sentence to make the entire sentence
concurrent with his state sentence.
In May 2012, he filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 in
the sentencing court seeking to have the federal and state sentences
run concurrently. The sentencing court denied this request and noted
that the claims concerning the computation of his sentence should be
presented in an action pursuant to § 2241.
On January 5, 2012, petitioner’s state sentence was fully
satisfied. He was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution
in Pekin, Illinois, on January 17, 2012.
The BOP computed petitioner’s sentence as follows:
(1)

The 30-month consecutive sentence was computed and reduced by
the 117 days of Good Conduct Time that potentially could be
earned by petitioner, resulting in a potential release date,
or target date, of March 9, 2013.

(2)

Petitioner’s preliminary commencement date was calculated by
subtracting 46 months, the length of the sentence, from the
target date and subtracting the potential good conduct time
available during the federal term, yielding a commencement
date of November 6, 2010.

(3)

Petitioner’s federal sentence was commenced prior to his
arrival at a federal correctional facility by a nunc pro tunc
designation to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for the
concurrent portion of his state and federal sentences.

(4)

Due to administrative disciplinary action, 27 days of good
conduct

time

was

disallowed

from

petitioner’s

federal

sentence. He is currently projected for release on April 2,
2014.
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a court may grant habeas
corpus to a person who is “in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” Petitioner contends the
calculation of his sentence by the BOP improperly extends his
incarceration; he seeks reinstatement of a calculation done by the
BOP in March 2012, under which his effective full term (“EFT”) was
calculated at July 4, 2014, resulting, after subtraction of the
potential 117 days of GCT, in a shorter period of confinement than
the current calculation.
The calculation was modified during an audit in April 2012,
resulting in the current projected release date of April 2, 2014. The
error identified in the audit was the use of petitioner’s EFT in
calculating the date petitioner’s entire sentence began, rather than
the SRD.1
In response to petitioner’s administrative grievance concerning
the calculation of his sentence, the Administrator of the National
Inmate Appeals office explained the sentence was properly calculated
pursuant to Program Statement 5880.28, noting specifically:
The BOP first determines a target date for release from the
sentence. Here, this was done by adding the consecutive portion of
the sentence, 30 months, to the date of release from the concurrent
sentence, January 5, 2012, resulting in a full-term date of July 4,
2014.
Next, the full-term date is reduced by the amount of GCT available
1

Doc. 9-1, p. 3.

during the consecutive portion of the sentence; here, the amount is
117 days on the 30-month term, resulting in a target date of March
9, 2014.
Third, the entire term is subtracted from the target date to
arrive at a commencement date, resulting here in a preliminary
commencement date of May 9, 2010. The number of GCT days that may be
earned during the entire term is then added to the preliminary
commencement date, resulting in a final commencement date of November
6, 2010.2
The court has carefully reviewed this response3 and the materials
submitted by respondent, including the portions of P.S. 5880.28
submitted by respondent,4 and finds no error in the calculation of
petitioner’s sentence. The BOP has reviewed the sentence computation
at length, both in the response to the petitioner’s grievance and in
statements submitted in this action, and it has explained the method
of sentence calculation and the reason for the correction of the March
2012 calculation. After review of the record and supporting materials,
the court concludes petitioner is not entitled to relief.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the petition for habeas
corpus is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner’s motions to expedite (Docs.
4 and 11) are denied as moot.
Copies of this Memorandum and Order shall be transmitted to the
parties.

2

Doc. 7-1, pp. 34-35.
The court notes that the administrative remedy response erroneously refers in one
instance to petitioner’s “63-month sentence” (Doc. 7, Attach. 1, p. 35). Because
the document elsewhere correctly references petitioner’s 46-month sentence, id.,
p. 34, the court concludes the error is harmless.
4
Doc. 7-2, pp. 14-28.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 19th day of September, 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
U.S. Senior District Judge