Carlton Allen v. Warden McKean FCI
701 F. App'x 80
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In September 2008 Allen was federally indicted on drug and firearm charges while held in state custody in Philadelphia; he was produced to federal court under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
- The federal court sentenced Allen in September 2009 to 97 months (later reduced to 84 months); he was returned to state custody and in September 2010 the state court imposed a 5–10 year sentence ordered to run concurrently with any federal sentence.
- Allen was paroled from state custody and returned to federal custody on November 13, 2013; the BOP used that date as the start of his federal sentence.
- Allen sought a nunc pro tunc BOP designation to have his federal sentence credited to run concurrently with his earlier state confinement; the sentencing court declined to recommend and the BOP denied the designation after applying 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) factors.
- Allen filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing (1) the sentencing court erred by not expressly citing the § 3553(a) factors when addressing concurrency and (2) the BOP failed adequately to consider relevant factors for a nunc pro tunc designation. The district court denied relief; Allen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court erred by not referencing § 3553(a) when addressing concurrency | Allen: court should have specifically referenced § 3553(a) factors when resolving concurrency | Warden: § 3584/Setser controls; court need only apply § 3553(a) when multiple terms are imposed or defendant already serving undischarged term; not applicable here | No error: sentencing court not required to consider § 3553(a) here under Setser and § 3584 |
| Whether the BOP abused its discretion by denying a nunc pro tunc designation under § 3621(b) | Allen: BOP failed to explain consideration of § 3553(a) or otherwise adequately apply relevant factors | Warden: BOP need only consider § 3621(b) factors; record shows BOP considered facility resources, offense nature, prisoner history, and lack of court statement | No abuse of discretion: BOP considered § 3621(b) factors and reasonably denied designation |
Key Cases Cited
- Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (federal court need not decide concurrency for an anticipated future state sentence)
- Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990) (BOP has discretionary authority under § 3621(b) to grant nunc pro tunc designations)
- Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806 (3d Cir. 2007) (standards for de novo review of habeas denials cited)
- United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 2010) (issues not raised in district court are waived)