United States v. Jordan Murphy
684 F. App'x 113
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Murphy pleaded guilty in Jan 2014 to conspiracy to distribute 100+ grams of heroin and was sentenced to 100 months under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to run consecutively to a state sentence.
- At sentencing defense counsel requested 14 months’ credit for time Murphy spent under a federal detainer; the court asked whether that time had been credited to his state sentence and was told it had not been.
- The court orally pronounced: “100 months with credit for time served on any federal detainer,” and ordered the federal sentence to run consecutively to the state sentence; the written judgment used identical language.
- In Nov 2016 Murphy filed a Rule 36 motion to correct the judgment, asserting the BOP was not giving him the 14 months’ credit and asking the court to amend the judgment to reflect the parties’ agreement.
- The District Court denied the Rule 36 motion (without prejudice to a § 2241 challenge to BOP’s credit calculation); Murphy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 36 permits correction of the judgment to add or change credit for time spent on a federal detainer | Murphy: Judgment should be corrected to reflect parties’ agreement that he gets 14 months’ credit for federal detainer time | Government/District Court: Written judgment already mirrors oral sentence; no clerical error to correct under Rule 36; BOP computes credit | Court: No clerical error; Rule 36 inapplicable; affirm denial and direct § 2241 for BOP credit disputes |
| Whether the sentencing court orally promised a different sentence than the written judgment | Murphy: Written judgment fails to reflect intended credit and results in longer incarceration | District Court: Oral pronouncement and written judgment use identical language regarding credit; no discrepancy | Court: Oral and written sentences match; no basis to alter judgment |
| Whether double credit could apply if time was credited on state sentence | Murphy: Implicitly sought same-time credit on federal sentence | Government: 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) prohibits double credit; BOP determines credit application | Court: If time was credited to state sentence, Murphy cannot also get federal credit; BOP handles calculations |
| Proper vehicle to challenge BOP’s computation of pre-sentence credit | Murphy: Requested district court correction under Rule 36 | Government/District Court: Challenge to BOP computation must be via § 2241 habeas in custodial district | Court: Rule 36 inappropriate; district court correctly directed Murphy to § 2241 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bennett, 423 F.3d 271 (3d Cir.) (Rule 36 can correct clerical errors and make written judgment conform to oral sentence)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (BOP, not sentencing court, calculates credit for time served before sentencing)
- Blood v. Bledsoe, 648 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.) (§ 2241 is proper vehicle to challenge BOP’s sentence-calculation decisions)