Winston v. Stansberry
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/10/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE
UNITED
FOR THE
STATES
DISTRICT
EASTERN DISTRICT
COURT
OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MONTE DECARLOS
WINSTON,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No.
PATRICIA R.
3:10CV631
STANSBERRY,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Monte
brings
2010,
DeCarlos
Winston,
a
federal
inmate
proceeding pro
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
the Court
"the Present
that he
§
received a 28
U.S.C.
2241 Petition").
§
2241
following ground:
provisions for applying Willis Jail Credit i1]
being
applied
(hereinafter
In that petition Winston contends
is entitled to relief on the
not
On September 1,
Petition
The terms of my detention are improper,
are
se,
correctly
by
the
because the
in my case
B.O.P.,
because
Virginia Laws dealing with Jail Credit and days credited
to a State sentence are different than the Federal Laws.
(See Attachment Al
& A)
Emphasis:
According to Virginia
law an inmates sentence start date is merely the sum of
all Jail Credit period minus the date received.
(DRC) As
you can see on (Attachment A) it v[e]rifies the date I
was received in State custody.
Also,
(Attachment AA)
shows that my sentence monitoring computation data sheet
dated 8-22-07
is
(Present
a clear
§
had it right,
form of
2241 Pet.
8.)
but
they changed it.
(This
retaliation).
Winston demands
the
following relief:
WI
want the Court to get my Willis Jail Credit correctly applied to my
sentence."
(Id.)
1 Willis v.
United States,
438
F.2d 923,
925
(5th Cir.
1971
Respondent has moved to dismiss the Present § 2441 Petition on
the
ground
because
that
the
argument
it
runs
Court
that
the
afoul
of
previously
Bureau
of
the
abuse
addressed
Prisons
Winston proper credit against his
of
and
Stansberry,
21,
aff' d,
2009),
384
3:08cv553,
F.
App'x 240
I.
On
Petition
In
the
PRIOR
26,
August
2 008,
from Winston
First
§
2241
2009
SECTION
the
Court
Winston's
failed
to
award
for time spent
2230844
(E.D.
Va.
See
July
2010).
PROCEEDINGS
received
(hereinafter
Petition,
WL
doctrine
federal sentence.
(4th Cir.
2241
has
sentence
in custody prior to the commencement of his
Winston v.
writ
rejected
("BOP")
federal
the
"the
a
U.S.C.
§
2241
§
2241
Petition").
asserted
Winston
First
28
that
he
had
not
received proper credit against his federal sentence for time spent
in
custody
Winston
prior
asserted
January 6,
2009
the
"time
Mem.
Supp.
WL
2230844
requested that the Court
with all prior time
Winston,
2009
thorough
review
Winston's
imposition
that
1999."
3:08cv553,
to
WL
sentence
credit
the
(E.D.
that
and made
Va.
1,
correct,
the
federal
actually
21,
which
back
to
Stansberry,
2009).
Winston
and credit my sentence
I'm entitled to."
in
sentence.
go
Winston v.
July
Accordingly,
manner
his
should
§ 2241 Pet.
"clear up,
2230844.
of
credit
of
the
the
§
Court
BOP
2241
conducted
had
following pertinent
Pet.
5,
a
calculated
findings:
1.
Credit Toward Winston7b
BOP
awarded
Concurrent
In
sentences,
credit
Federal
calculating
BOP
time
toward
Sentence
federal
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584, which controls
calculation of concurrent federal sentences if "imposed
on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged
term of imprisonment . . . ."
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); see
United States v.
Smith,
472 F.3d 222,
225
(4th Cir.
2006).
Winston
served
his
for
concurrent
considers a federal sentence to commence
when it is imposed.
See United States v. Labeille-Soto,
163 F.3d 93, 98-99 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that a federal
sentence cannot commence before it is imposed).
In
Winston's case,
the district court
judge ordered 77
months of his federal sentence to run concurrent to his
state sentence.
Accordingly, BOP granted credit toward
Winston's federal sentence for time in state custody
after his May 19, 2003 federal sentencing date and prior
to his
June
18,
2007
reception
into
[United States
Marshal Service]
2.
Credit
custody.
Toward
Called "Willis"
(Kelly Decl.
Winston's
Time
Federal
1 21.)
Sentence
for
So-
Served
Winston
also
earned
credit
toward
his
federal
sentence under the second factor,
so-called "Willis"
time, which arises from the holding in Willis v. United
States, 438 F.2d [923, 925 (5th Cir. 1971)].
While 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) bars crediting a federal term with
time already counted toward another sentence,
Willis
provides an exception. Under Willis, BOP grants prior
custody credit, even if it results in a double-credit
toward a state sentence, when two conditions are met: (1)
a
prisoner's
state
concurrently;
and,
release
is
date
and
(2)
the
equal
to
federal
federal
or
sentences
sentence
greater
than
run
full
the
term
state
sentence full term release date.
Id.
If, as in this
case, these two circumstances are met,
then credit is
given toward the federal sentence for time spent in state
pre-sentence custody that begins on or after the date of
the
federal
first
state
offense,
sentence.
and
runs
to
the
imposition
of
the
Id.
Winston's federal offense occurred January 6, 1999,
and he was taken into custody on January 7, 1999.
His
first
sentencing
date
occurred
on
March
22,
1999.
Pursuant to Willis,
BOP accurately credited Winston's
federal term for 74 days of pre-sentence credit for time
served from January 7 to March 21, 1999.
(Kelly Decl.
H 21.)
Time in state custody on or after the March 22,
1999 imposition of his state sentence is ineligible for
credit
toward
his
federal
sentence
under
the
Willis
exception.
Accordingly, Winston's claim to entitlement for time
served in state custody toward his federal sentence lacks
merit.
The Court finds no error in the manner that
Respondent
Winston v.
Va.
has
calculated Winston's
Stansberrv,
July 21,
200 9)
3:08cv553,
(internal
2009
sentence.
WL
2230844,
footnotes omitted;
at
*3-4
(E.D.
first omission in
original).
II.
Long before
Death
Penalty
the
Act,
abuse of the writ,
ABUSE
OF
enactment of
the
Supreme
THE
WRIT
the Antiterrorism and Effective
Court
developed
the
applications.
(1991)
(describing the evolution of the doctrine).
See
of the writ doctrine,
claim
that
petition."
was
context,
even
both
raised
Davis,
supported
was
rejected
the
applicant
on
Ct.
973
to
by
499
U.S.
467,
479-88
Under the abuse
adjudicated
373 U.S.
(2011).
In
claims
different
at 16) .
the
Zant,
F.3d 1262,
United States,
S.
373 U.S.
and
617
a habeas petitioner's
when
Sanders,
131
McCleskey v.
a federal habeas court "could decline to hear
Stanko v.
(citing Sanders v.
dismissed,
of
which limited the review of second or successive
habeas
a
doctrine
show that
on
a
legal
prior
the ends
of
1,
the
"may be
Nevertheless,
merits
1270
in
an
earlier
(10th Cir.
11-12
abuse
(1963)),
of
the
considered the
arguments."
Id.
2010)
cert,
writ
same
(citing
n [e] ven if the same ground
application,
it
justice would be
is
open
to
served by
permitting the
redetermination of
the
ground."
Sanders.
373
U.S.
at 16.2
Winston's Present § 2241 Petition constitutes an abuse of the
writ in that the Court has rejected his claim that he is entitled
to additional credit against his federal sentence for time spent in
custody prior to the imposition of his federal sentence,
Willis credit.
at 16) .
Stanko,
617
F.3d at 1270
(citing Sanders.
executed,
current claim.
in
his
Sanders,
First
373 U.S.
§
2241
at 16
identical grounds may often be
or
arguments,
be
couched
immaterial respects."
demonstrate
that
in
Petition,
ends
So
supported by different legal
different
of
his
identical
factual allegations.
language,
(internal citations omitted)).
the
embraced
("In other words,
grounds may often be proved by different
to
373 U.S.
Winston's prior broad assertions that his sentence was not
properly
also,
including
justice
warrant
or
vary
in
Winston fails
consideration of
2 Additionally, the Supreme Court barred new claims under the
abuse of the writ doctrine when those new claims could have been
raised in an earlier application but were not.
McCleskey, 499 U.S.
at 489.
The principles of the abuse of the writ doctrine are
generally codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), which provides:
No
circuit
or
district
judge
shall
be
required
entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus
inquire
into
the
judgment
of
that the
legality of
by
a
judge
application
provided in
28
U.S.C.
§
a
detention
court
or
of
a
of
writ
section 2255.
2244(a).
a
United
person
pursuant
States
such detention has
court
for
the
of
if
it
to
to
to
a
appears
been determined
the
United
States
of
habeas
corpus,
on
a
prior
except
as
his
Present
dismiss
§
2241 Petition.
(Docket
judgment
(Docket
No.
6)
No.
will
10)
Accordingly,
be
will
GRANTED.
be
Respondent's motion to
The
DENIED.
motion
The
for
petition
summary
will
be
DENIED and the action will be DISMISSED.
The
Clerk
is
DIRECTED
to
send
Opinion to Winston and counsel of
An appropriate Order shall
Richmoi
kA fp Wj/
copy
of
this
Memorandum
record.
issue.
Robert
Date:
a
E.
Payne
Senior United States District Judge
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?