United States v. Hardy, 010617 FED11, 16-13180
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOE KENDRICK HARDY, Defendant-Appellant.|
|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|
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-00143-WHA-SRW-1
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
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 (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 available through the federal prison system before seeking judicial review of his sentence." United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir. 1989).
During his revocation hearing, Hardy did not request judicial review of the denial of credit; instead, he requested that the district court exercise "equitable consideration" and reduce his sentence under section 3585(b). But the district court could not award Hardy credit or take into account the time he allegedly served in determining what sentence to impose for his multiple violations of the conditions of his supervised release.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP