United States v. Callahan, 800 F.3d 422

In 2011 Callahan removed a GPS bracelet, absconded a halfway house, and aided a bank robbery; he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting bank robbery and escape.
After plea but before sentencing, Callahan requested a § 4244 hearing to determine whether he should be provisionally committed to a suitable medical facility instead of imprisoned.
Two psychologists (one retained by defense, one BOP) diagnosed personality disorders and substance dependence in remission; both concluded hospitalization was not clinically required and recommended prison-based treatment options.
The district court held a § 4244 hearing, received expert reports, heard testimony, and denied commitment — but referenced and applied the standard in 18 U.S.C. § 4245 rather than § 4244.
The court sentenced Callahan to 151 months (bank robbery) and 60 months concurrent (escape); BOP then applied pretrial custody days first to an earlier sentence and then to this sentence.
Callahan appealed, arguing (1) the district court applied the wrong statute (§ 4245 vs. § 4244), (2) the sentence failed to account for his medical needs under § 3553(a)(2)(D), and (3) BOP misapplied pretrial custody credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court applied the correct statutory standard for provisional hospitalization (§ 4244 vs § 4245)	Callahan: court applied § 4245 (for imprisoned persons) but should have applied § 4244 (for convicted but not yet sentenced persons)	Government: implicitly that denial was correct on the merits and outcome unaffected	Court: District erred by quoting § 4245, but error was plain and harmless — outcome would be same under § 4244; no relief granted
Whether the district court failed to consider need to provide medical care under § 3553(a)(2)(D)	Callahan: sentence unreasonable because court didn’t adequately consider his medical/mental care needs	Government: court reviewed reports, testimony, and PSI covering medical/mental issues	Court: district court adequately considered medical needs when imposing sentence
Whether BOP should have credited all pretrial custody days to this sentence	Callahan: BOP misapplied pretrial custody credit and should have credited all days to current sentence	Government: prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before judicial review	Court: Declined to decide because Callahan failed to exhaust administrative remedies per 28 C.F.R. procedures
Standard of review for unpreserved statutory-error claim	Callahan: seeks reversal despite not objecting below	Government: requires plain-error review	Court: applied plain-error framework (Olano) and found no prejudice

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved errors)
United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2006) (prisoner must exhaust BOP administrative remedies before § 2241 review)