Chandler v. Chandler
Filing
13
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court ORDERS that Chandler's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby, denied. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 9/25/2015) (mem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE
FORT WORTH DIVISION
STEVEN WADE CHANDLER
I
l'.S. DISTRICT CO\ RT
c~B!HJIER\ n!ST!HCTOFTEXAS
s
§
f!LfD
[~25·1
( LFRh:, L.S. I)!S li~ICT COl'IH
§
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
vs.
w.
CHANDLER, WARDEN,
§
Respondent.
RODNEY
NO. 4:15-CV-579-A
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Carne on for consideration the petition of Steven Wade
Chandler ("Chandler") for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
u.s.c.
§
2241. The court, having considered the petition, the
response of Rodney W. Chandler, Warden, the record, and
applicable authorities, finds that the petition should be denied.
I.
Background
On January 9, 2006, Chandler was arrested by the Denton
County Sheriff's Department and charged with possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver and other related
crimes. On January 10, 2006, the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice issued a parole revocation warrant in connection with
Chandler's violation of conditions of parole in certain Dallas
County court cases.
On October 12, 2006, in the Eastern District of Texas,
Chandler was named in an indictment charging him and others with
conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to
manufacture, distribute or dispense methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C.
§
846. On November 3,
2006,
the United States
Marshals Service took Chandler into custody pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
1
Doc. 10 at 1-2. While Chandler
was in federal custody, Denton County dropped the charges against
him, but the state parole violation charges remained. 2 Chandler
pleaded guilty and, on October 5, 2007, was sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of 188 months, to be followed by a five-year term
of supervised release. Id. 10 at 40-42. On October 15, 2007,
Chandler was returned to the Denton County Jail. Id. at 37-38.
On October 25, 2007, the State of Texas revoked Chandler's
parole. Id. at 34i 50. He was released from State custody on June
19, 2009, and taken into custody by the United States Marshals
Service to begin service of his federal sentence. Id. at 34i 50i
53.
iChandler recognizes that he was "borrowed" from state custody for prosecution on the federal
charge. Doc. 2 at 4. (The "Doc." reference is to the docket in this action.)
2
Chandler erroneously alleges that his PSR states that no detainers and no pending charges
existed. Doc. 2 at 4. The PSR mentions in several places that there is a state hold for parole violations.
Doc. 12 at 003, 014-16.
2
Chandler has sought credit on his federal sentence for time
spent in state custody between January 9, 2006, and June 19,
2009. He has been awarded one day of prior custody credit for
January 9, 2006, which had not been credited to his state
sentence. Other relief was denied and Chandler has exhausted his
administrative remedies.
II.
Grounds of the Petition
Chandler asserts that he is entitled to credit toward his
federal sentence for the period of time beginning January 9,
2006, when he was arrested in Denton County, until June 19, 2009,
when he was returned to federal custody to begin serving his
federal sentence. He breaks his argument into three parts under
the headings "pre-sentence credit," Doc. 2 at 8, "post sentence
credit," id. at 11, and
"§
358S{b) exception for credit," id. at
13.
III.
Analysis
Chandler's entire argument is premised on the erroneous
contention that, because the Denton County charges were dropped
and his state parole was not revoked until after he had been
sentenced in federal court, he was actually in federal
custody-that is, primary jurisdiction of the federal government-3
from the date of his Denton County arrest until June 19, 2009. He
overlooks his own admission that he was originally "borrowed"
from state custody pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum issued by the federal court.
The first sovereign to arrest an offender has priority of
jurisdiction over him. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260
(1922); United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684-85
(9th Cir.
1980) . This jurisdiction continues until it is relinquished. Id.
A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, as here, requires the
prisoner returned to state custody when the proceedings are
completed. United States v. Londono, 285 F.3d 348, 356 (5th Cir.
2002); Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1991).
The writ effects a loan of the prisoner, whose sentence commences
to run when the prisoner is received to start serving it. Causey
v . c i vi 1 e t t i , 6 2 1 F . 2 d 6 91 , 6 9 3 - 9 4
( 5th c i r . 19 8 o) .
In this case, Chandler argues that the state relinquished
custody of him when it dismissed the Denton County charges.
However, nothing in the record supports this argument. Nor do any
of the cases he cites. Instead, the record shows that the state
continued to have primary jurisdiction over Chandler for parole
violations. As recited, supra, the PSR reflects that Chandler was
subject to a state hold for such violations. As Chandler notes, a
4
PSR is considered reliable evidence. United States v. Fitzgerald,
89 F. 3d 218, 223
(5th Cir. 1996) .
Chandler further argues that the Marshals Service somehow
retained custody of him when it returned him to Denton County
following imposition of his federal sentence. The argument makes
no sense and is not supported by the record in any event.
Chandler's federal sentence does not reflect that it was to
run concurrently with any state sentence; hence, it is presumed
that it will be served consecutively. Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d
550, 553
(5th Cir. 2003). The record reflects that Chandler has
been appropriately credited for time served, both on his state
and federal sentences. He has not shown that he is entitled to
any credit pursuant to Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923
(5th
Cir. 1971). Edison v. Berkebile, 349 F. App'x 953, 956 (5th Cir.
2009) .
IV.
Order
For the reasons discussed herein,
The court ORDERS that Chandler's petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2241 be, and is hereby, denied.
SIGNED September 25, 2015.
5
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?