Larry Scott Humphreys v. Warden, 699 F. App'x 854

Background

Humphreys pled guilty in the Eastern District of Tennessee (2002) to two armed bank robbery counts and two § 924(c) counts and was sentenced to 430 months; the judgment was silent as to concurrency with any state sentence. He did not appeal.
He was returned to Tennessee state custody, received a 5-year state sentence, and was released by Tennessee when a federal detainer wasn’t recorded; federal authorities re-arrested him ~2.5 weeks later.
Humphreys filed a § 2255 motion in 2004 claiming ineffective assistance and alleged he was misled; the district court dismissed it as time-barred and, after remand, again denied relief.
In 2011 he filed a § 2241 petition arguing (a) the Government breached the plea agreement / impeded his ability to perfect a § 2255, (b) due process was violated by Tennessee’s release (an "installment sentence"), and (c) he was entitled to retroactive designation (credit/concurrency) by the BOP.
The BOP denied his retroactive-designation request after considering 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) factors and the sentencing court’s statement; the magistrate recommended denying the § 2241 petition and the district court adopted the R&R.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Humphreys can use § 2241 to challenge breach of plea / sentence validity (saving clause)	Humphreys: § 2241 is his only vehicle because his § 2255 was time-barred and the Government impeded perfection	Gov: Challenges to conviction/sentence must proceed under § 2255; § 2255 was an adequate procedure	Court: Denied — § 2255 was an adequate remedy; saving clause not met, so § 2241 unavailable
Whether Tennessee’s failure to honor detainer and brief release created an illegal "installment" sentence or due process violation	Humphreys: Erroneous release forced installment service and violated due process / waived jurisdiction	Gov: Delay was clerical; brief liberty does not equal installment service nor conduct so egregious as to violate due process	Court: Denied — delay was a brief clerical error; not an installment sentence; no showing of grossly negligent or affirmatively wrong govt. conduct
Whether Humphreys was prejudiced by lost legal materials / impeded from perfecting § 2255	Humphreys: Loss of documents when released prevented timely § 2255 and supports § 2241 relief	Gov: (implicitly) no unlawful actions caused prejudice; § 2255 remains the proper vehicle	Court: Denied — petitioner failed to show unlawful government action or prejudice making § 2255 inadequate
Whether BOP erred in denying retroactive designation (concurrency / credit)	Humphreys: Federal sentence should run concurrent; BOP should retroactively designate state facility	BOP: Discretionary decision; followed § 3621(b) factors and Program Statement; sentencing court indicated it likely would have ordered consecutive sentences	Court: Denied — BOP acted within its discretion and followed policy

Key Cases Cited

Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2241 denials)
Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing § 2255 challenges from § 2241 execution claims)
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. en banc) (interpretation of § 2255(e) saving clause)
Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir.) (conviction/sentence challenges generally must be brought under § 2255)
Little v. Holder, 396 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (delay in commencement of sentence is not service or installment sentence)
Barfield v. United States, 396 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir.) (due process waiver-of-jurisdiction standard requires affirmative wrongdoing or gross negligence)
Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (U.S. Supreme Court) (BOP may designate state facility and thereby make sentences concurrent)
United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir.) (credit-for-time-served claims brought under § 2241)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir.) (courts read pro se briefs liberally)