Joseph Bolton v. United States
693 F. App'x 360
5th Cir.2017Background
- Bolton, a federal and Texas prisoner, had his supervised-release term revoked for threatening the President and was sentenced to 14 months to be served consecutively to any state sentence.
- After revocation, Bolton — then in state custody — filed a postjudgment motion asking that his federal revocation sentence run concurrently with his state sentence and that he receive credit for time in state custody.
- Bolton argued his state confinement resulted from his federal probation officer’s contact with state police and from a federal detainer that prevented posting bail.
- The district court denied relief; Bolton appealed the denial and sought appointment of counsel.
- The Fifth Circuit considered whether the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Bolton’s motion and whether various statutory or procedural vehicles (§2241, §2255, §3582(c), §3742, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, 36) applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §2241 to hear the postjudgment motion | Bolton: motion construed under §2241; relief appropriate despite custody in Southern District of Texas | Respondent: Northern District lacked jurisdiction because Bolton was confined elsewhere | Held: No jurisdiction under §2241 (Pack v. Yusuff applies) |
| Whether Bolton is entitled to credit for state custody/time served because of probation officer contact and federal detainer preventing bail | Bolton: state custody resulted from federal PO’s communication and detainer prevented bail, so credit and concurrent service warranted | Respondent: These claims do not create a proper jurisdictional basis and were not raised timely | Held: Claims not cognizable in the district court; cannot be raised there via the filed motion |
| Whether any other procedural vehicle supports relief (§2255, §3582(c), §3742, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 or 36) | Bolton: sought relief postjudgment (implicitly relying on available remedies) | Respondent: §2255 inapplicable (no sentencing error); §3582/§3742/time to appeal expired; Rule 35/36 do not apply to credit or these circumstances | Held: None of these statutes or rules provide jurisdiction or relief; district court lacked authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.) (procedural default/consideration of issues raised first on appeal)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir.) (jurisdiction under §2241 depends on prisoner’s custody location)
- Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir.) (§2255 does not cover claims not attacking sentence or sentencing errors)
- United States v. Mares, 868 F.2d 151 (5th Cir.) (Rule 36 cannot be used to obtain credit for time served in state prison)
- United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140 (5th Cir.) (affirmance on alternative basis where district court lacked jurisdiction)