Perry v. United States of America
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DENIED in all respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/29/16. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) Case No. 4:13CV2161 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and filed on October
13, 2013. The United States of America has responded to the motion [Doc. No. 3].
Movant has not filed any Reply to Response to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
Facts and Background1
On November 28, 2012, Movant was sentenced to 48 months as a result of
his entry of a plea of guilty to one count of the use of a communication facility to
facilitate a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). No direct
appeal was taken by Movant. There is but one issue asserted by Movant in this
The facts are taken from the file and docket entries of the original criminal case filing in this
case, Presentence investigation report, and the plea agreement filed in this matter.
§2255 Motion: That Movant failed to receive jail time credit for a specific period
STANDARD FOR RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2255
In order to state a cognizable claim a federal prisoner may seek relief on the
ground that “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such
sentence or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or
is otherwise subject to collateral attack…” 28 U.S.C. §2255. Claims based on a
federal statute or rule, rather than on a specific constitutional guarantee, may be
raised “ on collateral review only if the alleged error constituted a ‘fundamental
defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.’” Reed v.
Farley, 512 U. S. 339, 354, S. Ct. 2291, 129 l. D. 2d 277 (1994) (citations
Generally speaking the issue of whether a defendant receives credit for time
“spent in state custody pending trial is an issue “to be determined by the United
States Attorney General after the criminal defendant has begun to serve his
sentence rather than by a federal district court at the time of sentencing.” United
States v. Moore, 978 F. d 109, 1030-31 (8th Cir. 1992). The Attorney General has
delegated the authority to grant credit for time served to the Bureau of Prisons. Id
at 1031. Under the view of United States v. Pardue, 363 F. 3d 695, 699 (8th Cir.
2004), the credit for time served is within the purview of the Bureau of Prisons.
There are administrative procedures within the framework of the Bureau of Prisons
which allow for the review of the failure, by the Bureau of Prisons, to credit the
time served. Thus, if there is still in existence a failure to credit jail time after
exhaustion of the administrative procedures, the specific failure is subject to
review by filing a habeas corpus petition in the federal district court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2241. Rogers v. United States, 180 F. 3d 349,358 (1st Cir. 1999). There is
nothing in the record and papers filed that suggests, implies, or directly asserts that
movant has utilized, or exhausted his administrative remedies and might be entitled
to proceed under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, Movant has failed to establish he is
entitled any relief and has failed to present any basis upon which the Court may
Certificate of Appealablity
The federal statute governing certificates of appealability provides that “[a]
certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
A substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right requires that “issues
are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently,
or the issues deserve further proceedings.” Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th
Cir. 1997). Based on the record, and the law as discussed herein, the Court finds
that Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be filed separately.
Dated this 29th day of November, 2016.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?