EZEOBI v. MS. CASSITY et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/27/22017. (dmr)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARK KIRBY, ADMINISTRATOR,
Civ. No. 16-1684(RMB)
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.
to the Resp.’s Answer to Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
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.
Petitioner is an inmate at FCI Fairton.
(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
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 was serving a domestic sentence.
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.)
Enforcement Administration (“DEA”).
On the following day,
(Erickson Decl., ECF No.
12, ¶5(e); Doc. 1g, ECF No. 12 at 40-41.)
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,
He was sentenced on February 15, 2012, to a 151-
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.
Anne B. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”), Ex. A., ECF No. 9-6 at 4.)
Petitioner was placed back in detention “to serve out the rest
summarized the facts, stating that Petitioner had qualified for
British authorities to take advantage of this early deportation
program due to the Indictment in the United States.
The Government and the Defense agreed with the Court’s
(Id. at 5.)
(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
sentencing, February 15, 2012.
(Id., ¶5(h); Doc. 1i, ECF No. 12
credit for March 3, 2011 through February 14, 2012.
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).
Petitioner filed an administrative
(Pet., ECF No. 1-2 at 7-17.)
custody credit against his federal sentence for his time served
in the U.K. from August 2010 to March 2011.
(Pet., ECF No. 1 at
Respondent counters that an investigation by the Bureau
authorities pursuant to a criminal conviction in that country,
not an extradition request.
(ECF No. 9 at 11-12.)
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.
In reply, Petitioner contends the sentencing court
was aware of the pertinent facts, and its recommendation for
prior custody credit complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Reply, ECF No. 10 at 3.)
“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
commencement of the federal sentence.
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.
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
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
February 15, 2012, the date it was imposed.
2. Prior Custody Credit
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which governs prior custody credit,
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
(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
Section 3585(b)(2) does not apply in Petitioner’s situation
because he was not in custody on August 9, 2010 through March 2,
Petitioner was in custody of the U.K. for service of a sentence
voluntarily deported to the United States, arriving on March 3,
2011, prior to expiration of his U.K. sentence.
Circuit held that the BOP , relying on the sentencing court’s
sentencing credit for time Mehta spent in custody in England
pursuant to an extradition request by the United States,.
Petitioner was in custody in the U.K. pursuant to an unexpired
requested the U.K. issue a provisional arrest, but this was
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
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
The fact that Petitioner might have been
deported to Nigeria without serving his full U.K. sentence does
not detract from the conclusion that he received credit against
his U.K. sentence for August 9, 2010 through March 2, 2011.
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
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?