EZEOBI v. MS. CASSITY et al

Filing 13

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/27/22017. (dmr)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
________________________
CHIDI EZEOBI,
Petitioner,
v.
MARK KIRBY, ADMINISTRATOR,
FCI FAIRTON,1
Respondent.
________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 16-1684(RMB)

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Chidi
Ezeobi’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
erred in denying prior custody credit that the sentencing court
recommended he receive.

(Pet., ECF No. 1.)

Answer, opposing habeas relief.

Respondent filed an

(Resp.’s Answer to Pet. For

Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Answer”),
ECF Nos. 9, 11, 12.)

Petitioner filed a reply.

(Petr’s Reply

to the Resp.’s Answer to Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1

Petitioner’s immediate custodian is the proper respondent to
his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004).
The Court substitutes Mark Kirby,
Administrator of FCI Fairton, as the respondent in this matter.
(Answer, ECF No. 9 at 2 n. 1).

2241 (“Petr’s Reply”) ECF No. 10.)

For the reasons discussed

below, the Court denies the petition.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an inmate at FCI Fairton.

at 1.)

(Pet., ECF No. 1

On July 29, 2010, Petitioner was indicted in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
charged with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to
Distribute

Cocaine

and

Conspiracy

to

Export

Cocaine,

in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 963. (Decl. of Bryan
Erickson (“Erickson Decl.”) ECF No. 12, ¶5(a); Doc. 1c., ECF No.
12 at 10.)

At that time, Petitioner was serving a foreign

sentence in the United Kingdom.

(Erickson Decl., ECF No. 12,

¶5(b); Doc. 1d., ECF No. 12 at 19.)
On August 9, 2010, the United States requested that the
United Kingdom (“U.K.”) issue a provisional arrest warrant for
Petitioner.

(Id.)

The

U.K.

denied

the

Petitioner was serving a domestic sentence.

request
(Id.)

because

Petitioner

was deported to the United States on March 3, 2011, and arrested
and detained by the New York City Police Department pending a
transfer to federal authorities.

(Erickson Decl., ECF No. 12,

¶5(d); Doc. 1f, ECF No. 12 at 38.)
Petitioner

was

taken

into

custody

Enforcement Administration (“DEA”).

On the following day,
by

of  the

Drug

(Erickson Decl., ECF No.

12, ¶5(e); Doc. 1g, ECF No. 12 at 40-41.)
2 

officers

On October 21, 2011, Petitioner was found guilty on two
counts of his multiple count federal criminal Indictment in the
Southern District of New York.

(Erickson Decl., ECF No. 12,

¶¶4(a), 5(f)).

He was sentenced on February 15, 2012, to a 151-

month

imprisonment

term

Possess

of

with

Intent

to

for

Conspiracy

Distribute

Cocaine

to

Distribute

and

Conspiracy

and
to

Export Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 963.
(Erickson Decl., ECF No. 12, ¶5(g); Doc. 1h, ECF No. 12 at 4344.)

Upon imposition of the federal sentence, the sentencing

court recommended that Petitioner receive seven months of prior
custody credit for time served in the U.K. from August 2010
through March 2011. (Pet., ECF No. 1-2 at 2.)
At Petitioner’s sentencing, the Government represented that
Petitioner’s voluntary deportation from the U.K. to Nigeria was
stopped due to the U.S. federal indictment.

(Declaration of

Anne B. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”), Ex. A., ECF No. 9-6 at 4.)
Petitioner was placed back in detention “to serve out the rest
of

his

term

until

May

2011.”

(Id.)

The

sentencing

court

summarized the facts, stating that Petitioner had qualified for
early

deportation

to

Nigeria,

but

was

not

permitted

by

the

British authorities to take advantage of this early deportation
program due to the Indictment in the United States.
5.)

The Government and the Defense agreed with the Court’s

summary.

(Id. at 5.)
3 

(Id. at 4-

The BOP concluded that Petitioner was held in the U.K.
pursuant to his foreign conviction and his pending deportation.
(Erickson Decl., ECF No. 12, ¶¶11-14.) Petitioner’s 151-month
federal

sentence

was

computed

sentencing, February 15, 2012.
at

50-51.)

Petitioner

was

as

commencing

on

the

of

(Id., ¶5(h); Doc. 1i, ECF No. 12
given

349

days

of

prior

credit for March 3, 2011 through February 14, 2012.
51.)

date

custody
(Id. at

His projected release date is February 16, 2022, assuming

he receives all good conduct time available to him under 18
U.S.C. § 3624(b).
remedy request.
II.

(Id.)

Petitioner filed an administrative

(Pet., ECF No. 1-2 at 7-17.)

DISCUSSION
A.

Arguments

Petitioner

contends

that

the

BOP

failed

to

grant

prior

custody credit against his federal sentence for his time served
in the U.K. from August 2010 to March 2011.
2-5.)
of

(Pet., ECF No. 1 at

Respondent counters that an investigation by the Bureau

Prisons

revealed

that

Petitioner

was

held

by

the

U.K.

authorities pursuant to a criminal conviction in that country,
not an extradition request.

(ECF No. 9 at 11-12.)

Therefore,

Respondent concludes Petitioner is precluded from prior custody
credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) because he seeks credit for
time which was credited against another criminal sentence.
at 13-15.)

In reply, Petitioner contends the sentencing court
4 

(Id.

was aware of the pertinent facts, and its recommendation for
prior custody credit complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

(Petr’s

Reply, ECF No. 10 at 3.)
B.

Sentence Computation

“After a district court sentences a federal offender, the
Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for
administering the sentence.”
329, 335-36 (1992).

United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S.

There are two determinations required in

the computation of a federal sentence: (1) the date on which the
federal sentence commences; and (2) whether the prisoner can
receive

credit

for

any

time

spent

in

commencement of the federal sentence.

custody

prior

to

the

See Mills v. Quintana,

408 F. App’x 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3585.)
18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) governs the sentence commencement date, and
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) governs prior custody credit.
1.

(Id.)

Commencement of Federal Sentence

“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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). “In no case can a federal sentence
of imprisonment commence [in accordance with § 3585(a)] earlier
than the date on which it is imposed.”

See Blood v. Bledsoe,

648 F.3d 203, 208 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting BOP Program Statement
5 

5880.28,

and

permissible
correctly

finding

it

warrants

interpretation

determined

that

of

§

deference
3585.)

Petitioner’s

because

it

Therefore,
sentence

is

the

commenced

a

BOP
on

February 15, 2012, the date it was imposed.
2. Prior Custody Credit
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which governs prior custody credit,
provides:
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
which the sentence was imposed; or

for

(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.
Section 3585(b)(2) does not apply in Petitioner’s situation
because he was not in custody on August 9, 2010 through March 2,
2011

as

the

commission

result

of

his

of

another

federal

charge

offense.

that

arose

During

after

that

the

period,

Petitioner was in custody of the U.K. for service of a sentence
imposed

by

the

U.K.

before

his

federal

indictment.

He

voluntarily deported to the United States, arriving on March 3,
2011, prior to expiration of his U.K. sentence.

6 

Mehta

v.

distinguishable

Wigen,
from

597
the

F.
case

App’x
at

676

bar.

(3d
In

Cir.

Mehta,

2015)
the

is

Third

Circuit held that the BOP  ,  relying on the sentencing court’s
intention

that

Mehta

not

receive

credit,

incorrectly

denied

sentencing credit for time Mehta spent in custody in England
pursuant to an extradition request by the United States,.

Here,

Petitioner was in custody in the U.K. pursuant to an unexpired
U.K.

sentence,

there

was

no

extradition

request.

The

U.S.

requested the U.K. issue a provisional arrest, but this was
denied.
Furthermore,
determines

prior

consistent
custody

sentencing court.

with

credit

Mehta,

it

under

§

is

the

3585(b),

BOP

that

not

the

597 F. App’x at 679 (“§ 3585(b) does not

authorize a district court to compute the credit at sentencing”
(quoting Wilson, 503 U.S. at 334). Therefore, the BOP correctly
determined that it could not award double credit for the period
of August 9, 2010 through March 2, 2011, because Petitioner
received
custody.

credit

against

his

U.K.

sentence

for

that

time

in

See Mills, 408 F. App’x at 536 (“[u]nder § 3585(b),

time served on a federal detainer does not qualify as federal
prior custody credit if that time has been credited against
another sentence.”)

The fact that Petitioner might have been

deported to Nigeria without serving his full U.K. sentence does

7 

not detract from the conclusion that he received credit against
his U.K. sentence for August 9, 2010 through March 2, 2011.

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, in the accompanying Order
filed herewith, the Court denies the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: April 27, 2017

8