Barnes v. Edenfield

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Barnes' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1 ] is DENIED. 2. This action is DISMISSED and stricken from the Court's docket. 3. A separate Judgment shall issue this date. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 3/20/2014.(RBB)cc: COR, paper copy to pro se party via US Mail. Modified on 3/20/2014 (RBB).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
GREGORY BARNES,
Petitioner,
V.
KAREN EDENFIELD, Warden of FCIManchester,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6: 13-198-DCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

*** *** *** ***
Petitioner Gregory Barnes is an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Manchester, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Barnes has filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he is entitled to various sentence
credits and challenging the computation of his sentence. [Record No. 1] Having reviewed the
petition, the record of his case, and his other filings, the Court determines that Barnes is not
entitled to relief.
I.
On January 9, 2010, Barnes was arrested by federal authorities while he was a defendant
in an Ohio state court criminal proceeding. Five days later, he pleaded guilty in the state
proceeding to carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to a one-year prison term to be
served at the Lorain Correctional Institution in Ohio. On January 27, 2010, a federal grand jury
in the Northern District of Ohio returned a federal indictment against Barnes, charging him with
being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [See United States
-1-

v. Gregory L. Barnes, Criminal Action No. 1:10-42-CAB-1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010), Record
No.1 therein]
On February 4, 2010, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued to secure
Barnes’ appearance in the federal proceeding. [Id., at Record Nos. 6-7] Barnes pleaded guilty
to the federal Indictment and on August 3, 2010, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
sixty-seven months, followed by three years of supervised release.1 [Id., Record No. 15] On
August 19, 2010, the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) returned Barnes to state custody
at the Lorain Correctional Institution. [Id., Record No. 17] Barnes was released from state
custody, and USMS assumed custody of him on January 7, 2011(one day before he completed
his state sentence). Thus, Barnes began serving his sixty-seven month federal sentence on
January 7, 2011. [Id., Record No. 48-1, p. 5]
Barnes filed several motions in his criminal proceeding regarding sentence credits. On
August 18, 2011, he filed a Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc and/or Coram Nobis, seeking a
determination that his federal sentence be credited with eight months of jail time credit for “timeserved.” [Id., Record No. 31] On September 20, 2011, the sentencing court entered an Amended
Judgment, stating that Barnes “shall be given credit for time served in federal custody[].” [Id.,
Record No. 35, p. 2] Barnes then filed a motion seeking a clarification of the credit he would
receive. [Id., Record No. 40] On February 22, 2012, the district court denied that motion,
stating that “[t]he Court amended the [Judgment] and ordered credit for Federal time served.
1

Barnes’ federal sentence was affirmed on appeal. [Id., Record No. 38; see United States v.
Gregory L. Barnes, No. 10-4061 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2011)] He filed a motion to vacate under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, which was dismissed by the district court as untimely. [Barnes, Criminal Action No.
1:10-42-CAB-1, Record No. 46]
-2-

Further computations/credits for time are determined solely by the Bureau of Prisons.”2 [Id.,
Record No. 41]
Barnes has made a number of administrative filings, asking the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) to credit his sentence in various ways. The BOP repeatedly denied his requests,
determining that the time period between January 9, 2010, and August 3, 2010 could not be
credited toward his federal sentence because that time had already been credited to his state
sentence. [Record No. 1-2, pp. 5, 7, 12] The BOP further concluded that Barnes was not entitled
to a retroactive designation of the facility where he served his state sentence as the place where
he served his federal sentence between August 3, 2010, and January 7, 2011, because his federal
sentence was not ordered to run concurrently with his state sentence. [Id.] Barnes then filed the
current petition under § 2241, contending that he is improperly being denied credit against his
federal sentence by the BOP.
II.
In conducting an initial review of habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the
Court must deny the relief sought “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)).
Because Barnes is not represented by an attorney, the Court evaluates his petition under a more
lenient standard. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569,

2

On July 1, 2013, Barnes filed another motion in the district court to compel the BOP to
comply with the Amended Judgment and credit his federal sentence accordingly. [Id., Record No.
48] On August 2, 2013, the district court again denied the motion for the same reason.
-3-

573 (6th Cir. 2003). Thus, at this stage, the Court accepts Barnes’ factual allegations as true, and
liberally construes his legal claims in his favor.
III.
Barnes argues that he should have received credit for the period of time when federal
authorities took him into custody for his appearance regarding his federal criminal charges to his
sentencing; that is, from January 9, 2010, to August 3, 2010. When a prisoner is taken into
federal custody pursuant to a federal writ, the state retains primary jurisdiction over him.
Huffman v. Perez, No. 99-6700, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 24837, at *5 (6th Cir. Sept. 27, 2000);
United States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908, 911–12 (4th Cir. 1998); Wardell v. Wilson, No.
10-CV-294-GFVT, 2011 WL 6027072, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 5, 2011). Thus, Barnes was only
“borrowed” by federal authorities while in their custody under writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum. He remained in the primary custody of the State of Ohio. The record establishes
that Ohio fully credited his state sentence with the period of time Barnes remained in custody
pursuant to the federal writ. [Record No. 1-2, p. 5]
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) permits credit against a federal sentence only for time “that has
not been credited against another sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Time which has previously
been credited towards service of a state sentence may not be “double counted” in credit against
a federal sentence. See Nguyen v. Department of Justice, No. 97-6489, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS
1700, at *3 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 1999) (unpublished) (holding that time spent in federal custody
pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, while serving a state sentence, cannot be
applied to a federal sentence because the time has been credited to the state sentence); see also

-4-

Broadwater v. Sanders, 59 F. App’x 112, 113–14 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, crediting Barnes’
federal sentence with the time spent in state custody between January 9, 2010, and August 3,
2010, and for which he received credit on his Ohio state sentence would result in Barnes
improperly receiving double credit. See, e.g., McClain v. Bureau of Prisons, 9 F.3d 503, 505
(6th Cir. 1993); Garrett v. Snyder, 42 F. App’x 756 (6th Cir. 2002).
Barnes alleges that at his federal sentencing on August 3, 2010, the court stated that he
should receive eight months of credit on his federal sentence for this period of time, including
the time that Barnes spent in federal custody pursuant to the federal writ. Barnes relies on the
fact that in September 2011, his Judgment was amended to state that he should receive “eight
months” of credit on his federal sentence. But such reliance is misplaced.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), the award of credit against a federal sentence lies with the
exclusive authority of the BOP. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333–35 (1992); Castro
v. Sniezek, 437 F. App’x 70, 71 (3d Cir. 2011); Everett v. Ives, No. 6: 11–180–HRW, 2012 WL
2179097, at *2 (E.D. Ky. June 13, 2012) (explaining that the authority to calculate presentence
credits “is vested exclusively with the BOP as the delegate of the Attorney General.”).3 In this
case, the sentencing court correctly held that the BOP should determine whether Barnes was
entitled to sentencing credits. The BOP has not credited Barnes’ sentence with federal time

3

A sentencing court has authority under United States Sentencing Guideline § 5G 1.3(c) to
fashion a sentence that accounts for time already served. The guidelines caution sentencing courts
that, “[t]o avoid confusion with the Bureau of Prisons’ exclusive authority provided under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(b) to grant credit . . . any downward departure under application note [3(E) in § 5G1.3] be
clearly stated . . . as a downward departure pursuant to § 5G 1.3(c), rather than as a credit for time
served.” United States v. Gaskins, 393 F. App’x 910, 914 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
-5-

served because prior to January 7, 2011, Barnes had not served any time in federal custody.
Instead, as explained above, he was in primary state custody and was receiving credit on his state
sentence. Accordingly, the BOP properly refused to apply any credit on his federal sentence for
the time Barnes was in state custody between January 9, 2010, and August 3, 2010.
Barnes also seeks federal credit for the time he served in state custody from August 3,
2010 to January 7, 2011. He refers to Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990), in
support of this argument. In Barden, the Third Circuit held that the BOP has the discretion to
retroactively designate a state prison as the place of a prisoner’s confinement to serve a federal
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to give practical effect to a state court’s
otherwise-unenforceable order that its subsequently-entered criminal judgment should run
concurrently with a previously-imposed federal sentence. Id. at 478, 481–83. Here, however,
Barnes’ state court sentence was imposed prior to his federal term of imprisonment. Under 18
U.S.C. § 3584(a), multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively
unless the court orders the terms to run concurrently. Barnes’ federal sentence was not ordered
to run concurrently with his previously imposed state sentence.

Thus, the terms were

consecutive.
Although the sentencing court amended the original judgment to provide that Barnes
should be given credit “for time served in federal custody,”the sentencing judge clarified that he
could not apply credits to Barnes’ sentence because such action fell within the BOP’s purview.
As noted, it is the BOP, not the sentencing judge, that has authority to award custody credits to

-6-

a federal sentence. The BOP correctly calculated Barnes’ sentence, and Barnes’ arguments to
the contrary are without merit.
IV.
For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.

Barnes’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1] is

DENIED.
2.

This action is DISMISSED and stricken from the Court’s docket.

3.

A separate Judgment shall issue this date.

This 20th day of March, 2014.

-7-