Hernandez-Figueroa v. Rectenwald
| Decision Date | 19 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-175 Erie |
| Parties | JOSE O. HERNANDEZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. M. RECTENWALD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION1
Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by federal prisoner Jose O. Hernandez-Figueroa (the "Petitioner"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He was sentenced on December 8, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in Criminal Case Number 06-CR-119-01 (D. PR) to a 97 month term of imprisonment for his role in the robbery of a federally insured bank. He contends that the Bureau of Prisons (the "Bureau" or the "BOP"), which is the agency responsible for implementing and applying federal law concerning the computation of federal sentences, see, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992), erred in computing his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied.
On January 27, 2006, the Petitioner committed an armed robbery at the Financiera Commoloco located in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. During the commission of this offense, he illegally appropriated $741.00 from an individual victim. (See Declaration of Angelicia Holland ("Holland Decl."), Resp's Ex. 1, at ¶ 4v).
On February 6, 2006, the Petitioner committed the criminal conduct related to his federal offenses. Specifically, at about 3:19 p.m., the Petitioner and another individual entered the Banco Popular branch located on the Mayaguez Campus of the University of Puerto Rico and stole $79,960.00 at gunpoint. (Id. at ¶ 4iii).
On March 8, 2006, the Petitioner was arrested by local law enforcement in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and charged with the local criminal offense of Armed Robbery and Weapons Law Violation (local Case Numbers ISCR200601813 and ISCR200601814). These charges were for the Petitioner's role in the January 27, 2006, bank robbery at the Commoloco branch in Mayaguez (the non-federally insured financial institution). (Resp's Ex. 1n, Order, Hernandez-Figueroa v. United States, C.A. No. 14-1369 (D.PR, Jun. 24, 2014), at 1-3; Holland Decl. at ¶ 9(c)). Because local, non-federal authorities arrested the Petitioner first, he was in the "primary custody" (sometimes referred to as "primary jurisdiction") of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (Holland Decl. at ¶ 12). The "primary custody" doctrine developed to provide different sovereigns (in this case the state and the federal governments) with an orderly method by which to prosecute and incarcerate an individual who has violated each sovereign's laws. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922). See, e.g., Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F.2d 1145, 1153-54 (3d Cir. 1982); George v. Longley, 463 F.App'x 136, 138 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Elwell v. Fisher, 716 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2013). In relevant part, the doctrine provides that the sovereign that first arrests an individual has primary custody over him. That sovereign's claim over the individual has priority over all other sovereigns that subsequently arrest him. The sovereign with primary custody is entitled to have the individual serve a sentence it imposes before he serves a sentence imposed by any other jurisdiction, regardless of the chronological order of sentence imposition. See, e.g., Bowman, 672 F.2d at 1153-54. Primary custody remains vested in the sovereign that first arrests the individual until its sentence expires and it releases the inmate, or until it relinquishes its prioritythrough some other act, such as granting bail, dismissing the charges, or releasing the individual on parole. See, e.g., George, 463 F.App'x at 138 n.4.
On that same day (March 8, 2006), a federal criminal complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico charging the Petitioner with crimes related to his role in the February 6, 2006, robbery at the Banco Popular bank (the federally insured financial institution). (Resp's Ex. 1n, Order, Hernandez-Figueroa, C.A. No. 14-1369, at 1-3; Resp's Ex. 1e, Criminal Complaint). The district court issued a federal warrant for the Petitioner's arrest, and on March 9, 2006, it issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (Holland Decl. at ¶ 9(e)-(f)). The Federal Bureau of Investigation executed the federal arrest warrant on March 9, 2006, and the following day the Commonwealth temporarily transferred physical custody of the Petitioner to federal authorities pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (Id. at ¶ 9(g)-(h)).
Although the Petitioner was temporarily transferred to the physical custody of federal authorities pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico maintained primary custody over him. That is because a prisoner detained pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum remains in the primary custody of the sending sovereign unless and until it relinquishes jurisdiction over him. See, e.g., Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 125 n.1 (3d Cir. 2002), superseded on other grounds by U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) app. note 3(E) (2003). See also Elwell, 716 F.3d at 482 () The receiving sovereign - in this case, the federal government - is considered simply to be "borrowing" the prisoner from the sending sovereign for the purposes of indicting, arraigning, trying, and/or sentencing him. Id.
On August 30, 2006, the Petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to Bank Robbery, Aiding and Abetting, and Using and Brandishing of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), 2113(d), (2) and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The applicable sentencing guideline range for count one was 37-46 months and the mandatory minimum term for count two was 60 months. The United States agreed to recommend an imprisonment term at the lower end of the guidelines ranges. Under the terms of the plea agreement, no further adjustments or departures would be sought by either party. (Holland Decl. at ¶ 4ii, ¶ 9(i)-(j)).
On December 8, 2006, the district court sentenced the Petitioner to 37 months of imprisonment as to count one and 60 months of imprisonment for count two, to run consecutively with each other, for a total term of imprisonment of 97 months. (Id. at ¶ 9(k); Resp's Ex. 1i, Federal Judgment and Commitment Order). The Judgment and Commitment Order directed that the Petitioner receive credit for time served, that he serve his sentence in the New York-Pennsylvania area, and that he be permitted to participate in the most rigorous substance abuse treatment program available and be provided vocational training while incarcerated. The federal sentencing order was silent with respect to the relationship of the Petitioner's federal sentence with any other sentence to which he was subject or would be subject. The Statement of Reasons prepared by the sentencing court made no reference to U.S.S.G. § 5G1 or an intent to either adjust the Petitioner's federal sentence or fashion a downward departure from the applicable sentencing guidelines. (Id. at ¶ 5, ¶ 9(l)). And as the Respondent explains in detail in the answer, a review of the transcript of the federal sentencing hearing reflects that neither the United States nor the Petitioner raised U.S.S.G § 5G1.3, and the court did not indicate any intention to either downwardly depart or adjust the Petitioner's sentence. Indeed, absent from the transcript is any reference to either "time served" or prior custody credit, as referenced in the federal Judgment andCommitment Order. (See Answer, ECF No. 13 at 4-8; Resp's Ex. 1i at 2; Holland Decl., at ¶ 8, ¶ 9(m)). The United States Marshals Service subsequently returned physical custody of the Petitioner to the authorities with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in satisfaction of the federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (Holland Decl. at ¶ 9(o)).
On December 20, 2006, the Petitioner was sentenced in the local court in Puerto Rico to a term of three years plus one day imprisonment in Criminal Case Number ISCR20061813, to be served consecutively with a five year term of imprisonment in Criminal Case Number ISCR20061814. The court directed that its sentence was to run concurrently with any other sentence the Petitioner was ordered to serve by the federal court. (Id. at ¶ 9(n); Resp's Ex. 1j, State Sentencing Order, at 1, 5).
Several years later, on October 15, 2013, the Petitioner satisfied the sentence imposed by the Commonwealth. Records from the Puerto Rico Department of Corrections reflect that all time served from March 8, 2006 through October 15, 2013, was credited against the sentence imposed by the Commonwealth. (Id. at ¶ 9(p); Resp's Ex. 1k, fax coversheet and response from Puerto Rico Department of Corrections to Federal Bureau of Prisons). On December 10, 2013, the Petitioner was released to federal authorities for service of his federal sentence. (Id. at ¶ 9(q); Resp's Ex. 1h, at 2; Resp's Ex. 1l, Puerto Rico Department of Corrections Records Department faxed Certificate of Release).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), the BOP has calculated the Petitioner's federal sentence as consecutive to the sentence he served for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This means that it has refused to give him a retroactive concurrent designation under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (discussed below), which would have allowed the Commonwealth prison to be the place where he began service of his federal sentence.2 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), the BOP has calculated the Petitioner's federalsentence to have commenced on December 10, 2013, the date he was produced for service of his federal sentence. The BOP also has...
To continue reading
Request your trial