Robinette v. United States America

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons discussed, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Further, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. (Ordered by Senior Judge Terry R Means on 8/3/2017) (tln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
PHILLIP ROBINETTE,
Petitioner,
VS.
RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden,
FMC-Fort Worth,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-412-Y

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is petitioner Phillip Robinette’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
against Rodney W. Chandler, warden of the Federal Medical Center in
Fort Worth, Texas ("FMC-Fort Worth"), Respondent. After having
considered the petition and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court
has concluded that the petition should be denied.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a 235-month term of imprisonment on his
2010 conviction in the Eastern District of Texas for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. (Resp’t’s
App. 32, ECF No. 13.) By way of the instant petition, Petitioner
seeks prior custody credit from June 20, 2008, through July 10,
2009, toward his federal sentence for time spent in state custody.1

1

Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. (Resp’t’s Resp. 3-5, ECF No. 4.) However,
because Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks, the petition is denied
on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

(Pet. 1, ECF No. 1; Pet’r’s Objs. to Resp. 5, ECF No. 16.)
To

establish

government

has

the

provided

factual
the

background

declaration

of
of

the
Forest

case,

the

Kelly,

a

Correctional Program Specialist at the Designation and Sentence
Computation Center of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), providing:
.

.

.

3.

It is my understanding that Petitioner, Philip
Robinette . . . alleges he is entitled to
approximately 385 days of prior custody credit from
June 20, 2008 through July 10, 2009. I have
reviewed the sentence computation for Petitioner.

4.

On December 8, 1994, the 265th Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, sentenced Petitioner
to a 16-year term of confinement for Theft of 20k,
in case number F-9400515.

5.

Petitioner was released from the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) on mandatory supervision
on April 26, 2007.

6.

On June 20, 2008, a mandatory supervision violation
warrant was executed for Petitioner. On or around
June 21, 2008, Petitioner was charged with
Manufacturing/Delivery of a Controlled Substance,
in case number F-0834043. The State of Texas
dismissed case number F-0834043 on February 16,
2009; however, this offense is related to
Petitioner’s instant federal offense.

7.

The State of Texas revoked Petitioner’s mandatory
supervision on April 2, 2009, and on April 28,
2009, Petitioner was returned to TDCJ custody as a
mandatory supervision violator from Dallas County.

8.

On May 14, 2009, Petitioner was indicated [sic] by
a federal grand jury for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, on one count of Conspiracy
to Distribute or Possess with Intent to Distribute
or
Dispense
Methamphetamine
and
Gamma
Hydroxybutyrate (“GHB”), in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
2

9.

On June 3, 2009, Petitioner was transferred from
TDCJ to federal custody pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

10.

Jail credit was applied to Petitioner’s state
sentence for the period of November 30, 2007,
forward. Petitioner was released by the State of
Texas on June 26, 2009, via mandatory supervision,
to the custody of federal authorities.

11.

On July 7, 2010, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas sentenced
Petitioner to a 240-month term of imprisonment for
a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1), Conspiracy to Distribute or Possess with
Intent to Distribute or Dispense Methamphetamine
and GHB.

12.

On January 11, 2011, the State of Texas discharged
Petitioner’s
state
sentence
without
further
obligation.

13.

On September 24, 2015, Petitioner federal sentence
was reduced from 240 months to 235 months.

14.

On January 21, 2016, Petitioner filed Administrative
Remedy Number 849181 at his local institution requesting
jail credit on his sentence. This request was rejected
for failing to attempt informal resolution and failing to
submit his request th[r]ough his counselor or other
authorized person. Petitioner did not resubmit his remedy
and has not filed any other administrative remedies
requesting jail credit or challenging his sentence
computation.

15.

Petitioner’s federal sentence was computed to commence on
July 7, 2010. He was awarded 375 days of prior custody
credit for June 27, 2009, through July 6, 2010. If
Petitioner receives all good conduct time projected, it
is anticipated that he will be released from BOP custody
on September 21, 2026.

(Resp’t’s App. 20-21, ECF No. 13.)
According to Petitioner, he was arrested on June 20, 2008, and
the evidence seized from the arrest was used in both the state case

3

in F-0834043, which was later dismissed, and the federal case under
which he is currently confined. Thus, he urges that he is entitled
to credit from June 20, 2008, the date of his arrest, through July
10, 2009, toward his federal sentence for the time spent confined
under case number F-0834043 because the time was not credited to
any state sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
When administering a federal sentence, the BOP must give a
defendant credit for any time that he spent in official detention
prior to the date on which he commenced service of that sentence,
as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed or
any other charge for which he was arrested after he committed that
offense, that has not been credited against another sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b). Section 3585(b) expressly prohibits awarding a
prisoner “double credit for his detention time.”2 United States v.
Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992).
In this case, jail credit was applied to Petitioner’s 16-year
state sentence in case number F-9400515 from November 30, 2007,
through his release to mandatory supervision or parole on June 26,
2009. (Resp’t’s App. 2 & 26, ECF No. 13.) And, the BOP applied jail
credit to his federal sentence thereafter from June 27, 2009,

2

Limited exceptions to the prohibition of double credit can arise when the
federal sentence runs concurrently with a state sentence. See Kayfez v. Gasele,
993 F.2d 1288 (7th Cir.1993); Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.
1971). No such exception applies here.

4

through

July

6,

2010,

the

day

before

his

federal

sentence

commenced. (Id. at 2-3.) Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion,
the time in question was credited toward either a valid state
sentence or Petitioner’s federal sentence. Consequently, he is not
entitled to additional time credit.
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is DENIED.
Further, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.
Such a certificate 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). “Under this standard, when a district court
denies habeas relief by rejecting constitutional claims on their
merits, ‘the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.’” McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 498
(5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)). Petitioner has not made a showing that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right or would otherwise question
this

Court’s

resolution

of

Petitioner’s

claim.

Therefore,

certificate of appealability should not issue.
SIGNED August 3, 2017.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

a