United States v. Tetty-Mensah
665 F. App'x 687
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2011 Tetty‑Mensah was arrested in Oklahoma, pled guilty, and on March 20, 2012 was sentenced to an aggregate four‑year state term with eight months credited as time served; the remaining imprisonment was suspended and he was discharged.
- Two days later federal charges for related conduct were brought; he pled guilty and on February 14, 2013 received an 84‑month federal sentence.
- The PSR noted the prior ODOC custody but assigned no criminal history points or guideline departure based on it; Tetty‑Mensah did not seek a downward departure at sentencing or appeal his federal sentence.
- In March 2015 he filed a § 3582 motion in district court asking the BOP be ordered to credit his ODOC time against his federal sentence; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and noted § 3585(b) bars credit for time already credited to another sentence.
- After the BOP denied administrative relief, Tetty‑Mensah filed two more district court motions (August 2015 § 3582 and June 2016 nunc pro tunc relying on USSG §§ 5G1.3(b)/5K2.23); the district court dismissed each for lack of jurisdiction, and he appealed the June 2016 denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to reduce Tetty‑Mensah’s federal sentence to credit eight months in state custody | Tetty‑Mensah contends the court can reduce his sentence under § 3582(c) and/or by applying USSG §§ 5G1.3(b) and 5K2.23 (nunc pro tunc relief) | Government argues no statutory basis exists for the court to modify the sentence; BOP has primary authority and § 3585 bars double‑credit | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence; Sentencing Guidelines do not confer jurisdiction and Tetty‑Mensah failed to invoke Rule 35 or any statutory grant of authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Luna‑Acosta v. United States, 715 F.3d 860 (10th Cir.) (review of district court subject‑matter jurisdiction is de novo)
- Henry v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 43 F.3d 507 (10th Cir. 1994) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 1996) (district court may modify sentence only where Congress expressly authorized)
- United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707 (10th Cir. 1997) (same principle on limited authority to modify sentences)
- United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 1997) (non‑direct/successive challenges to sentence depend on § 3582(c))
- Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (same liberal construction for pro se litigants)