491 F. App'x 896
10th Cir.2012Background
- Heddings, a federal prisoner, challenged the BOP’s denial of credit toward his federal sentence for time served in Montana state custody.
- He was arrested on state charges in September 2005, and pleaded guilty in federal court to counts including receipt of child pornography, receiving a 240-month federal sentence.
- The state later sentenced him to 20 years with 16 years suspended, and the state sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the federal sentence, with Heddings beginning state service in October 2007.
- The BOP treated Heddings’s request for credit as a nunc pro tunc designation, consulted Setser/§ 3621(b) guidance, and sought the sentencing court’s view; the federal court opposed credit toward the federal sentence.
- Heddings began serving the federal sentence on May 1, 2009; the district court denied relief, and on appeal he contends BOP erred in denying credit, failed to effectuate a plea agreement, and violated separation of powers.
- The panel affirmed the district court, concluding that the BOP did not abuse its discretion and that the federal court intended consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOP properly denied credit for state custody time | Heddings argues BOP abused discretion by denying credit for time served in state custody. | BOP followed § 3621(b) and the presumption of consecutive sentences; the federal court opposed concurrent credit. | No abuse; credit denied and sentences run consecutively. |
| Whether the silence of the sentencing court on concurrency controls | Heddings claims concurrent service should follow state agreement and court silence. | Consecutive handling is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and Setser; silence does not mandate concurrency. | Presumption favors consecutivity; BOP’s denial aligns with intended sequence. |
| Whether a state plea agreement can control federal sentencing concurrency | Heddings asserts the state plea agreement creates enforceable concurrent service. | Federal sentencing is independent of state plea agreements; the state agreement cannot dictate federal timing. | State plea cannot control federal sentence commencement. |
| Whether BOP must consider the intentions of both courts | Heddings contends BOP should consider both state and federal court intentions. | BOP has independent authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and need not defer to state court intentions. | BOP properly exercised discretion; no requirement to align with state intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012) (concurrent/consecutive sentence authority with unadjudicated state charges)
- Anderson v. United States, 405 F.2d 492 (10th Cir. 1969) (prior authority on concurrent vs consecutive sentencing)
- Eccleston v. United States, 521 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (federal and state sentencing independence from state agreements)
- Bloomgren v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688 (10th Cir. 1991) (federal sentence timing cannot be overridden by state plea provisions)
- Weekes v. Fleming, 301 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2002) (BOP authority to designate place of imprisonment and related discretion)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (double credit rule under § 3585(b))