427 F. App'x 81
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Goodman, a prisoner, challenged the BOP's credit calculation for time served on his prior state parole sentence.
- His federal sentence began on April 7, 2000, when he was actually paroled into federal custody under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
- The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition; Goodman appeals seeking credit for 379 days served in state custody between March 25, 1999, and April 7, 2000.
- The court explains the federal sentence commences when received in custody, not when parole eligibility arises on the prior state sentence.
- Goodman contends for a nunc pro tunc designation to run the federal sentence concurrently with the state term, or for credit under other policies, which the court rejects.
- The court affirms, holding the BOP correctly calculated the sentence and that Goodman cannot obtain the requested designation or double credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal sentence credit is correct. | Goodman | Goodman | BOP correctly calculated; no error |
| Whether federal sentence commenced as of parole eligibility date or actual custody. | Goodman | BOP | Commencement is the custody date; April 7, 2000 |
| Whether nunc pro tunc designation to run concurrently was available under Barden. | Goodman | BOP | No merit; no subsequent concurrent state sentence to consider |
| Whether Goodman is entitled to time credit already served on the state sentence. | Goodman | BOP | No double counting; credit denied |
| Whether the claim is properly brought under § 2241 vs other avenues. | Goodman | BOP | No substantial question; affirm on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1992) (determines how sentence commencement and credits operate)
- Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2000) (detains in primary custody of first sovereign; custody trigger rules)
- Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990) (BOP discretion to designate concurrent confinement)
- United States v. Eakman, 378 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2004) (appeal of sentence validity vs execution under § 2255)
- Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion required for certain § 2241 challenges)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000) (concurrent designation limits when no retroactive situation exists)
- Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716 (3d Cir. 2003) (jurisdiction limits on coram nobis challenges)
- Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2007) (standards for de novo review of habeas petitions)
- Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (jurisdiction and authority to review BOP calculations)