United States v. Alvin Eiland
711 F. App'x 730
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alvin Eiland pleaded guilty in federal court for a mortgage fraud scheme and was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- Later, Eiland received a ten-year state sentence for related conduct; the state court ordered the state sentence to run concurrently with his earlier federal sentence.
- The federal judgment was silent as to whether the federal sentence should run concurrently with or consecutively to the state sentence.
- Eiland asked the BOP how much credit he had; the BOP treated this as a request for a nunc pro tunc designation so his federal sentence would run concurrently with the state term.
- The BOP asked the district court whether it intended concurrent or consecutive service; the district court issued an "Order on Sentence" stating the federal term was to run consecutively to the state term. The BOP denied nunc pro tunc relief.
- Eiland filed a § 2255 motion claiming the district court’s post-judgment order altered the final judgment and violated his due process rights; the district court denied relief and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to alter its sentence after final judgment | Eiland: the post-judgment Order on Sentence modified the final judgment and deprived him of due process | Government: the court’s Order merely clarified the presumption (consecutive) and did not modify the final judgment | Court: The order did not amend the final judgment; it made explicit the statutory presumption of consecutiveness |
| Whether the district court’s Order prohibited BOP nunc pro tunc relief | Eiland: the Order effectively foreclosed BOP discretion to grant nunc pro tunc concurrent designation | Government: Pierce is distinguishable; here BOP already decided and court’s order did not preclude BOP action | Court: Pierce is inapplicable; BOP had already denied nunc pro tunc and the district court’s decision did not affect BOP discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990) (procedures for seeking nunc pro tunc designations)
- Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2003) (absent explicit order, multiple sentences run consecutively)
- Hunter v. Tamez, 622 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2010) (presumption of consecutiveness where federal sentence predates state sentence)
- Pierce v. Holder, 614 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2010) (district court ruling precluding BOP nunc pro tunc relief can foreclose BOP’s opportunity to act)