Oliver v. Fed. Bureau Of Prisons
| Decision Date | 09 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 08 - 249 Erie |
| Parties | AARON OLIVER, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; and FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Warden, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Petitioner, Aaron Oliver, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Bastrop, Texas, has petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner contends that he is in custody in violation of the federal sentencing statutes because the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) improperly calculated his sentences by failing to give him prior custody credit. Specifically, Petitioner contends that he should be given federal sentence credit for time served in official detention prior to the commencement of his federal sentence from January 12, 1997 until December 1, 1999. He argues that, because this time should not have been credited against his state sentence, it must be treated as prior custody credit against his federal sentence. As demonstrated below, however, Petitioner's arguments lack merit because the BOP properly computed his federal sentence, including the date of commencement and his prior custody credit. Thus, his Petition will be denied. In addition, Petitioner's Motion Requesting Transfer back to the Western District of Pennsylvania (ECF No. 15) will be denied as moot.
The record evidence reflects the following facts. On March 13, 1985, Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to a 12 year term of imprisonment for Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (ECF No. 9-2, p. 13). On May 6, 1985, while Petitioner was serving his federal sentence, he was temporarily released to Pennsylvania state authorities for prosecution of a state criminal case. On May 22, 1985, Petitioner was sentenced by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in criminal proceeding no. 8207-1347 to a term of imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years for Aggravated Assault, to be served concurrently with Petitioner's federal sentence, and to a term of imprisonment of from two(2) to five (5) years for Possession of an Instrument of Crime, to be served consecutive to his federal sentence (ECF No. 9-2, p. 17). On June 13, 1985, Petitioner was sentenced by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in criminal proceeding 8201-2565 to an aggregate term of imprisonment of from seven and one-half (7) to fifteen (15) years for Manufacture, Delivery or Possession With Intent to Manufacture or Deliver a Controlled Substance, Criminal Conspiracy and Carrying Firearms Without a License in a Vehicle, all of which were to run concurrently with the federal sentence Petitioner was serving (ECF No. 9-2, p. 20).
On August 21, 1985, Petitioner was found guilty of a violation of his probation and was sentenced to a term of from one (1) to three (3) years, to be served concurrently with any other sentence Petitioner was serving (ECF No. 9-2, p. 22). On or about October 21, 1985, Petitioner was returned to USP Lewisburg.
On December 10, 1991, Petitioner completed serving his federal sentence that was imposed on March 13, 1985 (ECF No. 9-2, p. 25) and was released to the custody of Pennsylvania for completion of his state sentences. Petitioner served his state sentences from December 11, 1991 through December 10, 1993, when he was released from state custody on parole. In his Declaration in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Dismissal (ECF No. 12-1) Petitioner declares that he absconded from state parole supervision on April 3, 1995.
On January 13, 1997, Petitioner was arrested by Pennsylvania law enforcement officers and charged with Criminal Conspiracy, Carrying Firearms without a License, Carrying Firearms on a Public Street, and Knowingly Possessing a Controlled Substance. On April 22, 1997, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the PA Board) lodged a Parole violator warrant against Petitioner based on Petitioner's pending state charges. On May 12, 1997, the state charges of January 13, 1997 were dismissed (ECF No. 9-3, p. 2); however, Petitioner remained in state custody due to the state parole violator warrant. On August 14, 1997, the PA Board recommitted Petitioner to a state correctional institution as a technical parole violator (TPV) to serve six months of backtime (ECF No. 9-3, p. 9).
In the meantime, on June 4, 1997, a federal indictment was issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on the charges set forth in the Pennsylvania arrest warrant dated January 13, 1997. On July 9, 1997, Petitioner was "borrowed" from state authorities pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and was returned to SCI Graterford on July 11, 1997. On September 2, 1997, Petitioner was again "borrowed" from state authorities pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and on December 11 and 12, 1997, he was found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of three counts of simple possession of heroin, marijuana and cocaine, and of possession of a firearm by a felon (ECF No. 9-3, pp. 11-12). On September 3, 1998, he was sentenced to a 292 month federal term of imprisonment followed by a five year term of supervised release. The federal sentencing court did not provide any specific instructions regarding the relationship of the federal sentence with the undischarged state sentence Petitioner was serving at the time the federal sentence was imposed. On September 14, 1998, Petitioner was returned to SCI-Graterford.
On February 10, 1998, the Pennsylvania Board recommitted Petitioner as a Technical Parole Violator (TPV) and ordered him to serve six months back time on his Pennsylvania sentences (ECF No. 21-1, p. 3). On April 23, 1999, the Pennsylvania Board recommitted Petitioner to serve the remainder of his unexpired maximum term and recalculated Petitioner's unexpired maximum term on his state sentences (ECF No. 9-3, p. 9). The Board's computation specifically states that his original maximum date was June 13, 2000 and that he owed five years, one month and five days backtime against his state sentence, effective May 27, 1997, with backtime credit of one month and five days, for time served between the date the detainer was lodged (April 22, 1997), and the date that he was officially returned to the Board (May 27, 1997) (ECF No. 9-3, p. 4). Of particular importance is a notation "Time Lost Due To Delinquency: 2y 0m 19d"2 and the recomputation of the maximum term of Petitioner's state sentence to July 2, 2002.3
On December 2, 1999, Petitioner was paroled from his state sentence to a federal detainer for service of his 292 month federal sentence. Petitioner's current sentence computation reflects that his current 292 month federal sentence commenced on December 2, 1999, the date that he was paroled from his state parole violator term, and that he received prior custody credit for the 100 days spanning January 12, 1997 (the date of his arrest) through April 21, 1997 (the day before the commencement of his state back time sentence). Assuming he receives all good conduct time available to him under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), his projected release date is November 4, 2020.
The first bedrock principle that we must recognize in this case is that where an individual has committed crimes against two sovereigns, the issue of who has jurisdiction over him is a matter of comity between the two sovereigns. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262 (1922). As to the federal government, the authority to exercise this comity rests with the Attorney General, and an individual may not complain about his decisions. See Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.1997) ( ); Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F.2d 1145, 1154 (3d Cir. 1982) () (quoting Derengowski v. United States, 377 F.2d 223, 224 (8th Cir.1967)) (alteration by quoting court). A corollary to this principle is that a determination as to concurrence of sentence made by one sovereign does not bind the other. A prisoner may not, by agreeing with the state authorities to make his sentence concurrent with a federal sentence," 'compel the federal government to grant a concurrent sentence.' " Pinaud v. James, 851 F.2d 27, 30 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Sackinger, 704 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir.1983)).
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. See Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922). See also Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F.2d 1145, 1153-54 (3d Cir. 1982); Chambers v. Holland, 920 F. Supp. 618, 621 (M.D. Pa.), aff'd, 100 F.3d 946 (3d Cir. 1996). 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial