Farmer v. Chandler
Filing
12
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Accordingly, applicant is entitled to federal credit for the time he spent in federal custody at FCI-Three Rivers from February 2, 1993, to S eptember 24, 1993. However, applicant is entitled to no other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court ORDERS that the application of applicant for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby, (i) granted t o the extent applicant seeks federal sentence credit for the time he spent in federal custody at Federal Correctional Institution-Three Rivers between February 2, 1993, and September 24, 1993, and (ii) denied as to all other grounds for relief. (See order for specifics.) (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/21/2013) (mdf)
r:
U.S.DISTRICTCOURf
... NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE
FORT WORTH DIVISION
WILLIE NELSON FARMER,
OCT 2 12013
§
Deputy
§
Applicant,
§
§
VS.
§
NO. 4:13-CV-554-A
§
RODNEY W. CHANDLER,
§
§
Respondent.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Now before the court for consideration is the application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2241 filed on
July 9, 2013, by applicant, Willie Nelson Farmer, who is
presently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution-Fort
Worth.
Having considered the application, the response,
applicant's traverse, and applicable legal authorities, the court
concludes that the application should be granted in part and
denied in part. 1
In his application, applicant requests an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel for
such hearing. However, "[a]n evidentiary hearing is not required if the record is complete or the
petitioner raises only legal claims that can be resolved without the presentation of additional evidence."
United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1994). Applicant has also failed to show that "the
interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel." Id. (citing Schwander v. Blackburn,
750 F.2d 494,502 (5th Cir. 1985)).
1
1.
Background
Applicant was arrested by Tarrant County, Texas, authorities
on December 16, 1991.
Applicant was then temporarily transferred
to the custody of the united states Marshals Service pursuant to
a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
On August 28, 1992,
this court sentenced applicant to a 27-month term of imprisonment
for conspiracy to transport in interstate commerce and to sell,
possess and receive in interstate commerce, stolen vehicles.
Such judgment was silent as to its relationship to any
forthcoming sentences in any state cases.
Following sentencing,
applicant was returned to state authorities, and the u.S.
District Court judgment was filed as a detainer.
On September 17, 1992, the 72nd District Court of Tarrant
County, Texas, sentenced applicant for three theft of vehicle
offenses and one robbery by threats offense.
The sentences in
those cases were to run concurrently with each other, for a total
term of imprisonment of 30 years.
The state judgments also
indicated that the state sentences were to run concurrently with
applicant's federal sentence.
On February 2, 1993, applicant arrived at Federal
Correctional Institution-Three Rivers (FCI-Three Rivers) for
service of his federal sentence.
However, applicant was returned
2
to state custody on September 24, 1993, after BOP staff
determined that Texas retained primary jurisdiction of applicant.
On January 18, 2013, applicant was paroled from the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice to the custody of
authorities.
~ederal
Applicant received credit on his state sentences
for the time that he spent in federal custody pursuant to the
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
Therefore, he received
credit for his state sentences from December 16, 1991, to January
18, 2013.
Applicant arrived at Federal Correctional Institution-
Fort Worth on March 8, 2013, for service of his federal sentence.
The BOP computed the commencement date of applicant's federal
sentence as the date of his parol from the state sentences,
January 18, 2013.
Applicant subsequently filed a request for nunc pro tunc
designation of his previous state institution for service of his
federal sentence.
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) designation and
sentence computation center chief contacted this court to inquire
about the court's position on the retroactive designation.
A
U.S. probation officer responded, on behalf of the undersigned,
that the intent of the court in applicant's sentencing was for
the federal sentence to run consecutive to any state sentence
imposed.
Applicant's request for nunc pro tunc designation was
denied, and his appeal of that decision was also denied.
3
II.
Grounds for the Application
In his application, applicant raises three grounds for
relief:
(1) applicant's service of his federal sentence was
illegally interrupted when he was transferred from FCI-Three
Rivers to state custody;
(2) the BOP and the federal sentencing
court improperly amended applicant's federal sentence by
directing the federal sentence to be served consecutive to the
state sentences, despite the state's request for the state
sentences to be served concurrent with the federal sentence; and
(3) USSG
§
5G1.3(b) (1) should be applied to applicant's sentence.
Accordingly, applicant asserts that he is now serving his federal
sentence for a second time.
III.
Analysis
A.
First Ground for Relief
In his first ground for relief, applicant contends he began
service of his federal sentence when he arrived at FCI-Three
Rivers on February 2, 1993, and that his service was illegally
interrupted when he was transferred from FCI-Three Rivers to
state custody on September 24, 1993.
v. Vanyur, 14 F. Supp. 2d 773
Relying in part on Luther
(E.D.N.C. 1997), applicant argues
that when a prisoner's federal sentence is interrupted through no
4
fault of his own, he cannot be forced to serve his sentence in
installments.
Applicant asserts that he should therefore be
given credit on his federal sentence for the time he served in
the state institution following his removal from FCI-Three
Rivers.
The court discerns two issues raised by applicant's
contention: credit for time served while in federal custody at
FCI-Three Rivers and credit for time served while in state
custody following his transfer from FCI-Three Rivers.
As to the first issue, applicant asserts that he began
serving his federal sentence when he arrived, by mistake, at FCIThree Rivers.
(5th Cir. 2003)
The court agrees.
In Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550
(per curiam), a state prisoner who had been
convicted and sentenced for a federal offense while "on loan"
from state authorities was then mistakenly sent to a federal
institution to begin service on his federal sentence.
553.
Id. at
The prisoner was returned to state custody about six months
later and sent back to federal custody after completing his state
sentence.
Id.
The district court concluded that the prisoner's
sentence had commenced on the date he arrived at the federal
institution by mistake and that the prisoner was entitled to
credit on his federal sentence for the time served before he was
returned to state custody.
Id. at 552.
However, the district
court found that the prisoner was not entitled to receive credit
5
for the time he served in state custody after the transfer, and
the prisoner appealed that decision.
Id.
In concluding that the
prisoner was not entitled to federal credit for the time he
served in state custody, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted
that the prisoner "rightly and successfully challenged" the
denial of credit for the time he was mistakenly in federal
custody, implicitly approving the district court's determination
of the commencement date of the prisoner's federal sentence.
Id.
at 552.
Therefore, in light of Free, applicant's federal sentence
commenced when he was mistakenly received at FCI-Three Rivers,
and he is entitled to credit on his federal sentence for the time
he spent in federal custody from February 2, 1993, to September
24, 1993. 2
However, as in Free, applicant is not entitled to federal
credit for his time served while in state custody after his
2 The factthat the state may have credited applicant for his time in FCI-Three Rivers does not
alter the court's conclusion. Accord Floyd v. Berkebile, No. 3:05-CV-2489-M, 2008 WL 153494, at * 6
n.5 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 15,2008) (accepting findings and recommendations of the United States magistrate
judge); Daniel v. Berkebile, No. 3:04-CV-2047-P, 2007 WL 2890373, at *5-6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 28,2007)
(accepting findings and recommendations ofthe United States magistrate judge). Despite respondent's
contention, 18 U.S.C. § 3585 does not prohibit federal credit for the time applicant spent in federal
custody at FCl-Three Rivers. 18 U.S.C. § 3585 provides that, under certain circumstances, a defendant
will be given credit for time spent in official detention "prior to the date the sentence commences ... that
has not been credited against another sentence." 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). As the court has determined the
commence date of applicant's federal sentence is the day he arrived at FCI-Three Rivers, his time served
there was not "prior to the date the sentence commence[d]." Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3585 does not
prohibit applicant's entitlement to credit for the time he served while in federal custody at FCl-Three
Rivers.
6
transfer from FCI-Three Rivers.
In Free, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals acknowledged the common law rule that "a prisoner is
entitled to credit for time served when he is incarcerated
discontinuously through no fault of his own."
554.
Free, 333 F.3d at
The Fifth Circuit specifically addressed the district court
case of Luther and concluded that the court in that case had
"overbroadly applied" the common law rule.
Id.
The court
explained that such rule has a "limited function," in that "[i]ts
sole purpose is to prevent the government from abusing its
coercive power to imprison a person by artificially extending the
duration of his sentence through releases and re-incarcerations."
Id.
The court reasoned that the prisoner's mistaken service of
part of his federal sentence prior to completing his state
sentence would not extend the total time of his incarceration in
federal and state prisons and" [t]hat he will have done so in two
shifts between sovereigns rather than one is of no moment."
at 555.
The court concluded,
Id.
"The rule against piecemeal
incarceration precludes the government from artificially
extending the expiration date of a prison sentence; the rule does
not, however, justify or mandate that a prisoner receive a 'get
out of jail early' card any time that such a minuet occurs, even
when the prisoner is not at fault."
Id.
As in Free, although this court has concluded that
7
applicant's federal sentence commenced when he arrived at FCIThree Rivers, he is not entitled to credit for the time he served
following his return to state custody.
Applicant's reliance on
federal common law is of no avail, as there will be no extension
of his total time of incarceration as a result of his mistakenly
serving some time on his federal sentence before completing his
state sentence.
"That he will have done so in two shifts between
sovereigns rather than one is of no moment."
Id. at 555.
Therefore, applicant is not entitled to receive credit on his
federal sentence for the time he served in state custody.
B.
Second Ground for Relief
Applicant contends that the BOP and the federal sentencing
court improperly amended applicant's federal sentence by
directing the federal sentence to be served consecutive to the
state sentences, despite the state's request for the state
sentences to be served concurrently with the federal sentence.
Applicant argues that the BOP's correspondence to this court
regarding applicant's request for nunc pro tunc designation and
this court's subsequent reply functioned to amend applicant's
federal sentence in violation of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals's decision in Pierce v. Holder, 614 F.3d 158 (5th Cir.
2010)
(per curiam).
However/ applicant's reliance on Pierce is misplaced.
8
In
Pierce, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court did not
have jurisdiction to rule on a prisoner's application for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2241 because the BOP had
not yet decided the prisoner's nunc pro tunc request at the time
the court made its rUling.
Pierce, 614 F.3d at 160.
Unlike in
Pierce,the BOP in the instant case made its decision on
applicant's nunc pro tunc request before applicant filed his
application pursuant to
§
2241, and the correspondence between
this court and the BOP also occurred prior to the filing of his
application.
Further, as this court's sentencing judgment was
silent as to its relationship to any forthcoming sentences in any
state cases, the presumption was that the federal sentence was to
be served consecutive to other sentences.
553.
See Free, 333 F.3d at
("Well-settled federal law presumes that when multiple terms
of imprisonment are imposed at different times, they will run
consecutively unless the district court specifically orders that
they run concurrently.")
The court's response to the BOP's
inquiry simply affirmed this presumption.
Therefore, the court
has not prevented the BOP from exercising its discretion and has
not amended applicant's jUdgment in any way.
Thus, the court is
not prohibited by Pierce from ruling on the instant application.
Further, to the extent that applicant is arguing that the
BOP must honor the state's request for the state sentences to run
9
concurrently with the federal sentence, such argument also fails.
A state court's determination that a state sentence should run
concurrently with a federal sentence is not binding on the
federal government.
427-30
See, e.g., Leal v. Tombone, 341 F.3d 427,
(5th Cir. 2003) i Jake v. Herschberger, 173 F.3d 1059,
1065-66 (7th Cir. 1999)
("A prisoner may not, by agreeing with
the state authorities to make his sentence concurrent with a
federal sentence,
'compel the federal government to grant a
concurrent sentence.
(10th Cir. 1991)
Iff) i
Bloomgren v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688, 691
("The determination by federal authorities that
Bloomgren's federal sentence would run consecutively to his state
sentence is a federal matter which cannot be overridden by a
state court provision for concurrent sentencing on a
sUbsequently-obtained state conviction.").
Accordingly, to
whatever extent the state may have intended for the state
sentences to run concurrently with applicant's federal sentence,
the BOP was not required to honor such request.
Therefore,
applicant's argument must fail.
c.
Third Ground for Relief
Applicant also contends that U.S.S.G.
§
5G1.3 (b) should be
applied to his federal sentence to give him credit for the time
served on his state
sentences~
However, as applicant's argument
10
does not seem to be aimed at an alleged error in how his sentence
is being carried out, but rather concerns an alleged error by the
sentencing court in not applying U.S.S.G.
§
5Gl.3(b), his
argument is not cognizant in this application pursuant to
2241j
§
a 2255 motion would be the appropriate method of raising such an
argument. 3
2003)
See McKinley v. Haro, 83 F. App'x 591, 592
(per curiam)
cir. 2001)
j
(5th Cir.
Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830
(per curiam).
(5th
Further, applicant points to no legal
basis, and the court can find none, authorizing the court to
amend applicant's sentence some twenty years after applicant's
conviction and sentencing by making the adjustments in U.S.S.G.
5G1.3 (b) .
Thus, U.S.S.G.
§
§
5G1.3 (b) (1) (2) provides no relief to
applicant.
* * * *
Accordingly, applicant is entitled to federal credit for the
time he spent in federal custody at FCr-Three Rivers from
February 2, 1993, to September 24, 1993.
However, applicant is
entitled to no other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2241.
3 The court notes that the time for applicant to file a motion pursuant to § 2255 has long since
passed. See 28 V.S.c. § 2255(f).
11
IV.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that the application of applicant for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2241 be, and is hereby,
(i) granted to the extent applicant seeks federal sentence credit
for the time he spent in federal custody at Federal Correctional
Institution-Three Rivers between February 2, 1993, and September
24, 1993, and (ii) denied as to all
for relief.
SIGNED October 21, 2013.
.g;' Judge
12
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?