672 Fed.Appx. 978 (11th Cir. 2017), 16-13180, United States v. Hardy

Docket Nº:16-13180 Non-Argument Calendar
Citation:672 Fed.Appx. 978
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOE KENDRICK HARDY, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Sandra J. Stewart, George L. Beck, Jr., Kevin P. Davidson, Tommie Brown Hardwick, R. Randolph Neeley, U.S. Attorney's Office, MONTGOMERY, AL. For JOE KENDRICK HARDY, Defendant - Appellant: Patricia Vanessa Kemp, Brandon Thomas, Christine A. Free...
Judge Panel:Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 06, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 978

672 Fed.Appx. 978 (11th Cir. 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOE KENDRICK HARDY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-13180 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

January 6, 2017

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-00143-WHA-SRW-1.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Sandra J. Stewart, George L. Beck, Jr., Kevin P. Davidson, Tommie Brown Hardwick, R. Randolph Neeley, U.S. Attorney's Office, MONTGOMERY, AL.

For JOE KENDRICK HARDY, Defendant - Appellant: Patricia Vanessa Kemp, Brandon Thomas, Christine A. Freeman, Federal Defender Program, Inc., MONTGOMERY, AL; Kevin L. Butler, Federal Public Defender, BIRMINGHAM, AL.

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Joe Kendrick Hardy appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. Hardy argues that he was entitled to credit for time served in the custody of state officials before he was transferred to a federal prison to serve his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Hardy also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court lacked authority to credit Hardy for time he allegedly served in state custody. See id. After a defendant begins serving his sentence, the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, has exclusive authority to determine whether the defendant has spent time in official detention and to compute the amount of credit to which he is entitled. Dawson v. Scott, 50 F.3d 884, 889 (11th Cir. 1995). The Attorney General " make[s] the determination as an administrative matter when imprisoning the defendant." United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). If Hardy had been " dissatisfied with the computation of [his] sentence [for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he had to] pursue the administrative remedy...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP