Pumphrey v. Coakley
1:16-cv-00199
N.D.W. Va.May 11, 2017Background
- Petitioner William Pumphrey is serving aggregated federal prison terms (totaling 12 years, 4 months, 17 days) after convictions in the District of New Mexico (120 months, sentenced Jan. 20, 2011) and the District of Utah (120 months, sentenced June 6, 2013), ordered to run concurrently administratively by the BOP.
- Pumphrey was arrested on federal charges in Salt Lake City on August 28, 2009, and previously was in state custody in Arizona (June 2007–Jan. 2009) on a 195‑day sentence that was credited as served.
- Petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing the BOP miscalculated his federal sentence and should have assigned both federal sentences to start on August 28, 2009, giving him additional prior custody credit and earlier release.
- The BOP initially computed an aggregate sentence beginning Jan. 20, 2011, and after review issued an updated computation still beginning Jan. 20, 2011, with 602 days of prior custody credit (March 22–June 21, 2007, and Aug. 28, 2009–Jan. 19, 2011).
- Respondent argued the BOP—not the courts—determines commencement date and credit application; a federal sentence cannot commence before it is pronounced; prior custody credit cannot be given for time already credited to another sentence.
- Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss/for summary judgment and dismissing Pumphrey’s § 2241 petition with prejudice; motions to amend and for ruling were granted in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When a federal sentence may be treated as commencing for credit purposes | Pumphrey: both federal sentences should be deemed to start Aug. 28, 2009, so he receives credit from that date | Respondent: sentence commencement is ministerial, set by BOP; a sentence cannot commence before it is pronounced | Court: federal sentence cannot commence before imposition; BOP correctly set commencement date at Jan. 20, 2011 for the aggregated computation |
| Application of prior custody credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) | Pumphrey: he remained in federal custody since Aug. 28, 2009 and deserves credit for that entire period | Respondent: § 3585(b) bars credit for time already credited to another sentence; BOP computed allowable prior custody credit and excluded time credited on state sentence | Court: BOP properly awarded 602 days of prior custody credit and did not improperly double‑count time credited against state sentence |
| Effect of concurrent sentences imposed on different dates | Pumphrey: Utah court intended credit and concurrent effect from earlier date | Respondent: concurrent sentences imposed on different dates can run concurrently only from later sentence’s commencement; BOP must aggregate administratively per § 3584(c) | Court: because sentences were imposed on different dates, concurrency runs only from the later imposition; BOP’s aggregation was proper |
| Whether court or BOP controls computation and credit | Pumphrey: relies on district court judge’s sentencing statements/recommendations | Respondent: BOP (Attorney General) is charged with sentence computation and crediting under Wilson and the statutes | Court: BOP has authority to compute and apply credit; judge’s recommendation cannot override statutory constraints; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (BOP/Attorney General is responsible for computing federal terms and applying credit)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: factual allegations must raise a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of liability)
- United States v. LaBeille‑Soto, 163 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1998) (a federal sentence cannot be ordered to commence on an earlier date than pronounced)
- U.S. v. Brown, 977 F.2d 774 (4th Cir. 1992) (prior custody credit under § 3585(b) is unavailable if that time was credited against another sentence)