Hughes v. Slade, CV 03-3857-MLG.

• Decision Date: 31 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. CV 03-3857-MLG.,CV 03-3857-MLG.
• Citation: 347 F.Supp.2d 821
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Edward R. HUGHES, Petitioner, v. J.E. SLADE, Warden, Respondent.

347 F.Supp.2d 821

Edward R. HUGHES, Petitioner, v. J.E. SLADE, Warden, Respondent.

No. CV 03-3857-MLG.

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division.

August 31, 2004.

Edward R. Hughes, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, Patrick R. Fitzgerald, AUSA — Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Denise Willett, AUSA — Office of U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

GOLDMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is currently serving a twenty year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute in Victorville, California, having been convicted of Interference with Commerce by Threat or Violence, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island in 1998. On May 30, 2003, he filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the United States Bureau of Prisons' denial of sentence credit for time served in a Mexican jail while awaiting extradition to the United States. The underlying facts are as follows.¹

In February 1994, Petitioner and a business associate, Brian McCarthy, traveled to Mexico, ostensibly to conduct business on behalf of Automation Software, Inc ["ASI"], a company based in Rhode Island, of which both men were officers. On February 8, 1994, Petitioner returned to ASI's office in the United States with what he claimed was a "ransom" demand. Petitioner told company officials that McCarthy had been abducted in Mexico on February 6, 1994. He informed them that the kidnappers were demanding a ransom of one million pesos, and that Petitioner was to return with the money or McCarthy would be killed. On February 7, 1994, while preparations were being made to deliver the ransom, but before any ransom had been paid, McCarthy's body was found in a shallow grave on a road between Mexico City and San Luis Potosi. On February 9, 1994, Petitioner resigned his position with ASI. He sold his Rhode Island home in March 1994 and returned to Mexico. Nine millimeter shell casings found near McCarthy's body were later determined to match shell casings found on Petitioner's property in Rhode Island. Firearm transaction records revealed that Petitioner had purchased a nine millimeter handgun in September 1993.

On May 17, 1994, a warrant for Petitioner's arrest was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The warrant was based on a complaint charging Petitioner with attempted extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On June 15, 1994, the United States submitted an extradition request to the Mexico Secretariat of Foreign Relations asking that Petitioner be returned to the United States to stand trial on federal extortion and related charges.

On July 7, 1994, Petitioner was taken into custody by Mexican officials. On October 10, 1994, the Government of Mexico granted the United States' request to extradite Petitioner. However, Petitioner was not immediately returned to the United States. Rather, he was detained in Mexico. According to a letter dated May 6, 1998, from the Deputy Attorney General's Office for International Affairs in Mexico, in October 1994, Petitioner had been made the subject of criminal proceedings in Mexico arising from the murder of Brian McCarthy. (Resp.'s Opposition, Exh. 3, at 1). In June 1995, the United States was notified by the Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary that Petitioner's extradition would be deferred until he completed his "final sentence" on the Mexican charges. (Resp.'s Supp. Response, Exh. 4). On April 29, 1997, Petitioner was acquitted of the murder charge in Mexico. He was released on bail on July 4, 1997, but was required to remain under house arrest while the prosecution's appeal of his acquittal was pending; a procedure apparently permitted under Mexican law. On March 5, 1998, the decision of the trial court was reversed by a Mexican appellate court. Petitioner was found guilty of McCarthy's murder and sentenced to 19 years in prison. Petitioner then filed an "Amparo" suit, somewhat akin to a habeas corpus proceeding, and remained free on bond pending the resolution of that action. In August 1998, the Amparo suit was denied. By that time, however, Petitioner was back to the United States.² Petitioner was never returned into the custody of Mexican authorities, and remains a fugitive from Mexican justice.

Meanwhile, on September 11, 1996, an indictment was returned in the District of Rhode Island charging Petitioner with Interference with Commerce by Threat or Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. An arrest warrant was issued that same day. In May 1998, Petitioner surrendered himself to federal authorities in Rhode Island. On September 24, 1998, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the charge contained in the indictment. On February 8, 1999, he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence. On May 18, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment in a published decision. United States v. Hughes, 211 F.3d 676 (1st Cir.2000).

On September 26, 2002, Petitioner submitted an administrative remedy request to the United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), seeking credit for the time spent in Mexican custody between July 7, 1994 and July 4, 1997. The request was denied on October 10, 2002. Petitioner then exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing the denial, first, to the Regional Director of the BOP, and then to the BOP Central Office, which denied his appeal on January 16, 2003. Petitioner filed this petition on May 30, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the Bureau of Prison's calculation of his pre-sentence credits.³ Petitioner continues to claim here that he is entitled to credit against his federal prison sentence for time spent in official custody in Mexico from July 7, 1994 to July 4, 1997.

On July 31, 2003, Respondent filed an Opposition to Petitioner's § 2241 motion. In that opposition, Respondent contended that Petitioner was not entitled to any custody credit for the period of time at issue because he was not "exclusively in custody on federal charges relating to the sentence he is currently serving." (Opposition at 4). Respondent initially argued that Petitioner had been arrested on local murder charges in Mexico on July 7, 1994, rather than under the United States' extradition request, and was held in Mexican custody on those charges through July 4, 1997. (See Opposition, Exh. A., Decl. of Alan Ray). Respondent thus alleged that Petitioner was not entitled to credit on his federal sentence for any of the time he spent in Mexican jails.

On September 4, 2003, the Court ordered Respondent to provide a supplemental opposition describing the circumstances of Petitioner's arrest on July 7, 1994 in Mexico, and its relation to the extradition request made by the United States, because it appeared to the court that Petitioner's arrest on that day was based upon the extradition request by the United States and not on the local murder charges. On February 23, 2004, Respondent filed the supplemental response, in which it was acknowledged that Petitioner was held by Mexican authorities exclusively at the request of the United States from July 7, 1994 to October 10, 1994. According to Respondent, Petitioner was not charged with murder under Mexican law until October 10, 1994. The Bureau of Prisons therefore awarded Petitioner credit against his federal prison sentence for the period of time between July 7, 1994 and October 10, 1994. Respondent maintains, however, that Petitioner is not entitled to federal prison credit for any of the remaining time, from October 10, 1994 to July 4, 1997, that he spent in Mexican custody because he was being prosecuted and held by Mexican authorities on the murder charges and, therefore, was not exclusively in federal custody.

On March 15, 2004, Petitioner filed a response to the supplemental brief together with a motion styled "Objection to Government's Response," in which he contends that Respondent has presented a "new argument" which should not be considered by the Court.⁴ Petitioner steadfastly maintains that he is entitled to credit against his current sentence for the period of time from October 10, 1994, to July 4, 1997. Briefing is complete and the matter is ready for decision.

II. Discussion and Analysis

Petitioner claims that under the plain terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) he is entitled to credit against his federal sentence for time spent in Mexican custody. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Petitioner is correct.

(A) Petitioner is Eligible for Federal Sentence Credit Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) for the entire time spent in Mexican custody.

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) provides:

Credit for Prior Custody. A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences —

(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or

(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed;

that has not been credited against another sentence.

In order to be awarded credit for the entire period of time spent in Mexican custody under § 3585(b)(2), Petitioner must show: (1) he was in official detention during the relevant time period; (2) the period of detention for which credit is sought was served as a result of an arrest that occurred after the commission of the offense for which he is now serving a federal sentence; (3) the detention resulted from an arrest for some other charge; and (4) the time period claimed has not been credited against another...