950 F.3d 285
5th Cir.2020Background:
- Smith was convicted in 2016 of federal conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine and related communication offenses and sentenced to 120 months.
- At sentencing the judge orally stated Smith should receive 609 days’ credit for time in Louisiana custody (June 2013–Feb 2015); the written judgment initially omitted the credit but an amended judgment later reflected 609 days.
- The BOP denied Smith’s request to apply the 609 days to his federal sentence because those days had already been credited to a prior state sentence.
- Smith filed a habeas petition seeking BOP credit; a magistrate recommended denial and the district court denied on de novo review; Smith appealed.
- Relevant procedural/legal facts: Smith’s federal sentence was imposed after the state sentence (affecting nunc pro tunc availability); §3585(b) prohibits credit already applied to another sentence; the sentencing court lacked authority to force BOP to grant credit or to reduce below the statutory mandatory minimum absent a government motion or safety-valve relief.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOP abused discretion by not treating Smith’s credit request as a nunc pro tunc designation | Smith: BOP should construe his request as a nunc pro tunc designation (relying on Barden) | BOP: federal sentence came after state sentence so nunc pro tunc designation is not authorized; claim not administratively exhausted/rip e | Court: No abuse; nunc pro tunc unavailable here and claim not ripe/exhausted |
| Whether Smith was entitled to pre‑sentence credit under Willis / §3585(b) | Smith: entitled to 609 days’ Willis credit for pre‑sentence state custody | BOP: the 609 days were already credited to the state sentence; §3585(b) forbids double credit; BOP, not the court, calculates credit | Court: Denial was correct; cannot double‑credit; district court lacked authority to award credit |
| Whether sentencing court’s order for full concurrency binds BOP / whether §3585(b) limits district court authority | Smith: sentencing court ordered the 120‑month federal term fully concurrent with the state term, so BOP must give 609 days credit | BOP: sentencing court cannot compel BOP to grant credit; BOP cannot lawfully credit time already credited elsewhere; sentencing court cannot force BOP to reduce sentence below statutory minimum | Court: Sentencing court’s order could not be enforced by BOP; §3585(b) controls; district court properly denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Holder, 614 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2010) (nunc pro tunc designation ripeness and BOP final‑decision rule)
- Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990) (inmate requests for pre‑sentence credit may be construed as nunc pro tunc requests)
- Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971) (principles concerning credit for time in nonfederal custody)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (§3585(b) prohibits double credit; BOP implements credit calculations)
- In re U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Dep’t of Justice, 918 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2019) (district courts cannot order BOP to grant custody credit)
- United States v. Binion, 981 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1992) (credit calculation rests with Attorney General/BOP; district court lacks jurisdiction to award credits)
- Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996) (government motion required to allow sentence below statutory minimum under §3553(e))