Falcetta v. United States
20-50247
| 5th Cir. | Dec 3, 2021Background
- In 1997 Falcetta received federal sentences: 71 months (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and 120 months (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); Marshals discovered he remained in state custody under a habeas ad prosequendum and returned him to state custody.
- A Texas state court later sentenced him to 44 years; his 71‑month federal term ran concurrently with the state term, the 120‑month § 924(c) term could not run concurrently by statute.
- In December 2018, while still in state custody, Falcetta filed a § 2241 petition seeking BOP credit for time served since 1997, arguing the Marshals’ initial custody commenced his federal sentence.
- The Bureau of Prisons had not issued a final decision on his credit request when he filed; a BOP Administrative Remedy Coordinator later informed him his appeal omitted required documents (letter dated Aug. 30, 2019).
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because Falcetta had not exhausted administrative remedies; he was paroled and transferred to BOP custody about two months after filing.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that exhaustion was required and had not occurred before filing, so the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction over § 2241 petition given BOP administrative‑remedy requirement | Falcetta: BOP exhaustion not required before federal filing; alternatively, he exhausted while petition was pending | U.S.: BOP exhaustion is required and not completed before filing | Court: Jurisdiction lacking because administrative remedies were not exhausted before filing; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a state prisoner filing § 2241 is bound by BOP administrative process | Falcetta: As a state prisoner at filing, he was not subject to BOP remedy requirement | U.S.: Exhaustion required regardless; BOP process applies to sentence‑credit disputes | Court: Argument raised first on appeal — not addressed by court |
| Whether Falcetta exhausted administrative remedies before filing | Falcetta: He had exhausted or exhaustion was ongoing while petition pending | U.S.: BOP records and coordinator letter show no final BOP decision before filing | Court: Documents show deficiency and later BOP correspondence; exhaustion did not occur before filing |
| Merits: whether the federal sentence began in 1997 and whether § 924(c) conviction survives Davis | Falcetta: Marshals’ 1997 custody commenced federal sentence; § 924(c) invalid under Davis | U.S.: Opposes merits; argues procedural deficiency bars review | Court: Did not reach merits because of lack of jurisdiction; Davis argument raised first on appeal and not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1992) (BOP administrative exhaustion required for sentence‑computation disputes)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (sentence computation and credit claims subject to BOP procedures)
- Garcia v. Reno, 234 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2000) (district court dismissal reviewed de novo)
- Ray v. Commissioner, 13 F.4th 467 (5th Cir. 2021) (appellate courts may decline issues raised for first time on appeal)
- Pierce v. Holder, 614 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal where BOP administrative remedies were not exhausted)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated § 924(c) residual‑clause crime‑of‑violence definition)