Mays v. Hudson

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed and all relief is denied. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 9/19/2022. Mailed to pro se party Shannon Tecoko Mays by regular mail. (jal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHANNON TECOKO MAYS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 22-3142-JWL

WARDEN DONALD HUDSON,
Respondent

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a
prisoner in federal custody, challenges the calculation of his sentence and seeks credit for the
time he spent in home confinement from April 17, 2014, to January 7, 2015. For the reasons that
follow, the court denies relief.
Factual Background
On February 5, 2014, petitioner was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of
Texas on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Doc. 4, declaration of Heather Gandy,
par. 5, Ex. B. He was arrested on February 11, 2014, and remained in federal custody until
February 13, 2014, when he was released on pretrial bond. Id., par. 6, Ex. C.
On March 28, 2014, a bench warrant was issued after petitioner failed to appear for a
motion hearing. Id., par. 7, Ex. D. He was arrested on April 1, 2014, and remained in federal
custody until April 16, 2014, when he again was released on pretrial bond. Id., par. 8, Exs. C and
E.
Petitioner remained on pretrial bond, and subject to home confinement, from April 17,
2014, until January 7, 2015.

On January 8, 2015, petitioner failed to appear for a pretrial hearing. A warrant was
issued, and petitioner’s pretrial bond was revoked. Id., par. 9, Ex. F.
On February 4, 2015, a federal grand jury indicted petitioner on a charge of failure to
appear after pretrial release. Id., par. 10, Ex. G. He was arrested on June 29, 2017, and remained
in federal custody for the rest of the criminal proceedings. Id., par. 11, Ex. C.
On June 19, 2018, petitioner was sentenced to a term of 162 months for conspiracy to
commit wire fraud. Id., par. 12, Ex. H. On the same day, he was sentenced to a consecutive term
of 18 months for failure to appear after pretrial release. Id., par. 13, Ex. I.
Petitioner’s aggregate sentence of 180 months began on June 19, 2018, the day it was
imposed. He was awarded 374 days of prior custody credit for the following periods: (1)
February 11, 2014, through February 13, 2014; (2) April 1, 2014, through April 16, 2014; and (3)
June 29, 2017, through June 18, 2018. Id., par. 15, Ex. J. He was not given credit for the time in
home confinement on pretrial bond.
Discussion
To obtain federal habeas corpus relief, a prisoner must demonstrate that he “is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
An application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “is an attack by a person
in custody upon the legality of that custody, and... the traditional function of the writ is to secure
release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A petition
brought under § 2241 challenges “the fact or duration of a prisoner's confinement and seeks the
remedy of immediate release or a shortened period of confinement.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole
Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997). See also Sandusky v. Goetz, 944 F.3d 1240, 1246
(10th Cir. 2019)(a petition under § 2241 “[is] used to attack the execution of a sentence....”)

2

Petitioner’s eligibility for credit for pretrial custody is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b),
which states:
(b) Credit for prior custody.--A defendant shall be given credit toward the
service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention
prior to the date the sentence commences-(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the
commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed;
that has not been credited against another sentence.
18 U.S.C.A. § 3585.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), credit for prior custody is awarded for any time a defendant
“spent in official detention prior to the date his federal sentence commences if the detention
resulted from the same offense of conviction or from another charge for which the defendant was
arrested after commission of the offense of conviction and if that time has not been credited
against another sentence.” Weekes v. Fleming, 301 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner contends he is entitled to sentence credit for time in home confinement, stating
that he “had to account for his presence multiple times a day, he was subject to random breath
and urine tests, his access to visitors was limited” and only left his residence for medical
appointments. (Doc. 1, p 10.)
The Tenth Circuit has squarely rejected the scope of “official detention” advanced by
petitioner, stating, “For the purpose of calculating credit for time served under 18 U.S.C. § 3585,
‘official detention’ means imprisonment in a place of confinement, not stipulations or conditions
imposed upon a person not subject to full physical incarceration.” United States v. Woods, 888
F.2d 653, 655 (10th Cir. 1989).

3

In 1995, the United States Supreme Court defined “official detention” to mean detention
that is in a penal or correctional facility and subject to the control of the Bureau of Prisons. Reno
v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 57-58 (1995).
Since then, relying on Koray, the federal courts have consistently rejected claims by
federal prisoners seeking sentence credit for home confinement. See, e.g., Brown v. Warden Fort
Dix FCI, 789 Fed. Appx. 291 (3d Cir. 2020)(affirming the denial of relief under § 2241 where
petitioner sought sentence credit for home confinement); Cook v. Wilson, 2020 WL 4284583, at
*3 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 24, 2020)(petitioner was not entitled to sentence credit for home confinement
“no matter how restrictive the conditions”); Purcell v. Joseph, 2022 WL 958388 (N.D. Fla. Feb.
23, 2022)(petitioner was not entitled to credit for time spent released on bond to home
confinement).
Under Koray and subsequent case law, it is clear that petitioner is not entitled to the
sentence credit for time spent in home confinement.
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that the petition for habeas corpus is dismissed
and all relief is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2022

/s/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4