Medford v. Holland
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Medford's construed petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 3 ] is DENIED. 2. The Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this Order. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 11/24/2014.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON
BRANDON DESMOND MEDFORD,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 6: 13-251-KKC
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
WARDEN J. C. HOLLAND,
Respondent.
*** *** *** ***
Proceeding without an attorney, on August 19, 2013, Brandon Desmond Medford filed a
“Motion to Correct and Clarify Imposed Sentence” in the Northern District of Texas, the court
where he pled guilty to bank robbery in 2009 in United States v. Medford, No. 3:08-CR-95-B-1
(N.D. Tex. 2008). In his motion, Medford sought prior custody credits from August 28, 2009,
when he was arraigned on federal charges, to November 25, 2012, when he was transferred from
state prison to federal custody to begin service of his federal sentence. [R. 3]
Because Medford’s motion challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation of his
sentence, that court construed his motion as seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Since
Medford was confined at the United States Penitentiary-McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky, when
he filed his petition, the court transferred the petition to this district. [R. 11] The warden has
filed his response to the petition. [R. 19] Medford did not file a reply in further support of the
petition within the time permitted, and this matter is therefore ripe for decision.
I
On March 25, 2008, Medford robbed a First Convenience Bank in Dallas, Texas. Shortly
thereafter, state authorities charged Medford with Robbery in Case No. F-0840617. On April 9,
2008, federal authorities charged Medford with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Medford was arrested by Dallas police on April 22, 2008. [R. 19, p. 2]
On July 11, 2008, Medford was taken into federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum for an initial appearance on the federal charge, and was returned to
state custody two weeks later. [R. 19-5, pp. 2-3] Medford stayed in state custody on several
misdemeanor drug charges until he was released on January 29, 2009. Medford was not in state
or federal custody between January 29, 2009, and June 18, 2009. [R. 19-4, R. 19-13]
Medford returned to state custody on June 18, 2009. On July 2, 2009, Medford pled
guilty to both the bank robbery and to a drug offense he had previously committed, and was
sentenced to two concurrent 5-year terms of imprisonment, in Case Nos. F-0840617 and F0725575. The state judgments awarded prior custody credits against his state sentences for time
spent in Texas custody from November 5, 2007 to November 12, 2007; from April 22, 2008 to
December 8, 2008; and from June 18, 2009 to July 2, 2009. [R. 19-7]
On August 28, 2009, Medford was arraigned on the federal charge, again pursuant to a
federal writ. Medford pled guilty to the charge on November 11, 2009, and on March 11, 2010,
he was sentenced to an 84-month term of incarceration. United States v. Medford, No. 3:08-CR95-B-1 (N.D. Tex. 2008). Because the federal judgment was silent on the matter, the BOP ran
this term consecutively to his Texas sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). [R. 19-1, p. 4]
On May 14, 2010, Medford was returned to state custody to resume service of his state
sentences. [R. 19-5, pp. 2-3] On November 21, 2012, Medford completed service of his state
sentences, and began his Texas parole term. [R. 19-9, pp. 2-3] He was transferred to federal
custody to begin service of his federal term at this time.
BOP officials commenced Medford’s federal sentence on November 21, 2012. The BOP
has awarded him prior custody credits from December 9, 2008, to January 12, 2009, because
state officials had not credited this time against his state sentence. At one point, the BOP had
also given Medford prior custody credit from January 30, 2009, to June 17, 2009, [R. 19-2, pp. 23], but it was later learned that Medford was not in custody at all during this period, and credit
for this time was accordingly rescinded. [R. 19-1, p. 6] Accounting for all good conduct time
Medford may earn during his incarceration, his projected release date is November 21, 2018.
[R. 19-13, p. 4]
In July 2013, Medford filed an inmate grievance seeking retroactive designation of his
state prison as the place for service of his federal sentence pursuant to Barden v. Keohane, 921
F.2d 472 (3d Cir. 1990). When that request was denied, Medford alternatively sought prior
custody credits under Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971). The BOP denied
these requests because, through operation of law, Medford’s federal sentence ran consecutively
to his prior state sentence. [R. 19-3] Through his present request for relief, Medford seeks prior
custody credits for August 28, 2009, through December 25, 2012, pursuant to Willis. [R. 3, p. 2]
II
Calculation of a federal prisoner’s sentence, including both its commencement date and
any credits for custody before the sentence is imposed, is governed by federal statute:
(a) A sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date 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.
(b) 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. § 3585. The BOP implements Section 3585 through Program Statement 5880.28.
Pursuant to § 3585(a), Medford’s sentence commenced when he was received into
federal custody to begin service of it on November 21, 2012. Because he seeks sentencing credit
for a time period before this date, its availability is governed by Section 3585(b). That section,
however, permits federal credit for a time period only if it “has not been credited against another
sentence.” Here, Medford concedes that a straightforward application of § 3585(b) prevents him
from receiving credit against his federal sentence for time spent in state prison between August
28, 2009, and November 21, 2012, as he was in exclusive state custody during the entirety of this
period serving his two concurrent five-year sentences robbery and drug possession in Case Nos.
F-0840617 and F-0725575. Because Texas credited the entirety of this time period against his
state sentence, the literal terms of Section 3585(b) preclude Medford from receiving “double
credit” for this time. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992); Broadwater v. Sanders,
59 F. App’x 112, 113-14 (6th Cir. 2003).
Instead, Medford seeks prior custody credit for all time spent in state custody
commencing from the date of his federal arraignment on August 28, 2009 under the authority of
Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971). Notwithstanding the express terms of
§ 3585(b), by administrative regulation the BOP does permit “Willis time credits,” an exception
to the prohibition against “double counting,” in one circumstance. Where a prisoner is subject to
a federal sentence and a state sentence which are running concurrently, and the full term of the
federal sentence will conclude after the full term of the state sentence, the BOP will credit the
prisoner’s sentence with any time spent in state presentence custody that began after the federal
offense was committed, up until the prisoner began service of either the federal or state sentence.
Program Statement 5880.28; Kayfez v. Gasele, 993 F.2d 1288, 1290 (7th Cir. 1993). In Willis,
the Fifth Circuit explained that unless such credit is awarded, the prisoner will not receive credit
for time spent in state custody because of the longer federal sentence. Id. at 925.
Willis does not assist Medford for two reasons.
sentences were run consecutively, not concurrently.
First, Medford’s federal and state
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) provides that
“[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court
orders that the terms are to run concurrently.” Because the March 11, 2010, judgment and
commitment order entered by the Northern District of Texas was silent on the matter, Section
3584(a) requires the BOP to treat the subsequently-imposed federal sentence as running
consecutively to Medford’s pre-existing Texas sentence. Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427, 431
(5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2005). Willis credits
are simply not applicable where the state and federal sentences run consecutively to one another.
Cruz v. Wilson, No. 6:09-CV-281-GFVT (E.D. Ky. April 1, 2011), aff’d, No. 11-5471 (6th Cir.
April 26, 2012) (“Cruz does not fall within the exception enumerated in Willis because Willis
time credits may only be awarded to prisoners whose federal and state sentences run
concurrently, not consecutively as Cruz’s do.”).
Second, Medford seeks credit against his federal sentence from August 28, 2009, and
November 21, 2012, time he spent in state custody after his state sentence was imposed on July
2, 2009. However, Willis credits are only available for time spent in state presentence custody
before the state sentence is imposed. Program Statement 5880.28 Ch. 3(c)(1)(b); Willis, 438
F.2d at 425. Because Medford has received credit against his state sentence for this time, the
concerns articulated in Willis are not present, and no further credit is warranted.
Section 3585(b) precludes prior custody credit for time Medford spent in the Texas
prison system because this time was already credited against his Texas sentences, and because
the circumstances of Medford’s incarceration do not fit within the narrow exception established
in Willis, no further custody credits are warranted. Medford’s petition must therefore be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Medford’s construed petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 [R. 3] is DENIED.
2.
The Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this Order.
3.
This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.
Dated November 24, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?