U.S. v. Winter, 83-1711

Citation730 F.2d 825
Decision Date20 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-1711,83-1711
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Howard T. WINTER, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

Thomas Butters, Boston, Mass., with whom Robert W. Walker, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.

John Voorhees, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., and Kathleen A. Felton, Atty., Crim. Div., Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.

Before COFFIN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges, and GIGNOUX, * Senior District Judge.

COFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Howard Winter was sentenced on August 20, 1979, to a ten-year term in federal prison for racketeering and sports bribery. The federal sentence was scheduled to begin upon his release from a Massachusetts state prison, where he was serving a nine-to-ten-year sentence for an unrelated state crime. Winter appealed the federal sentence, and this court issued a mandate affirming his conviction on December 2, 1981. The essence of Winter's claim on the present appeal is that the state Parole Board unconstitutionally delayed his release from state custody in retaliation for his exercise of his right to appeal the federal sentence. He seeks to have subtracted from his federal sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, the six months during which the Board delayed its parole decision because of the pending federal appeal. We affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Winter's Sec. 2255 motion.

Winter first became eligible for parole from state custody on September 14, 1980; at that time, the Parole Board denied him parole without giving a reason. On July 3, 1981, the Parole Board postponed its parole decision until October 5, 1981, noting that it took this action "to await decision by Federal Court". At its October 5 review, the Parole Board postponed its decision until December 7, 1981, with the caveat, "If Federal case disposed of prior to that, decision can be made at earlier date". On December 14, 1981, twelve days after Winter's federal conviction had been affirmed, the Board granted Winter's parole, noting that he was to be released on January 21, 1982, "to Federal Warrant only".

Shortly after his transfer to federal custody, Winter requested the Bureau of Prisons to credit to his federal sentence the time he spent in state prison between July 3, 1981, when the Parole Board first indicated that it was delaying its parole decision pending resolution of the federal appeal, and January 21, 1982, when it released him into federal custody. The Bureau of Prisons denied his request, and Winter filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts a Sec. 2255 motion for correction of his sentence. He argued that he remained in state custody from July 1981 to January 1982 "due to the pendency of his federal appeal", and that this time should have been credited to his federal sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3568, which provides:

The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an offense shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. The Attorney General shall give any such person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.

After a preliminary consideration pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the district court dismissed the motion. The court held that Winter "should have exhausted his remedies at the time he was in state custody", and that he had in any event demonstrated no basis "for the claim that [his] state custody could be shown to be in connection with the federal charge". Winter brought this appeal from the district court's dismissal of his Sec. 2255 motion.

Winter acknowledges that no court has applied the "jail credit" provision of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3568 in circumstances such as those he alleges. In general, a federal prisoner cannot be given credit for time spent in state prison on an unrelated charge. United States v. Luck, 664 F.2d 311, 312 (D.C.Cir.1981). Courts have qualified this rule with an exception that applies "if the continued state confinement was exclusively the product of such action by federal law-enforcement officials as to justify treating the state jail as the practical equivalent of a federal one". Shaw v. Smith, 680 F.2d 1104, 1106 (5th Cir.1982) (quoting Ballard v. Blackwell, 449 F.2d 868, 869 (5th Cir.1971). Thus if a federal detainer were lodged against a prisoner about to be released from state custody, any days that the state held him beyond what would otherwise have been his release date, to await the arrival of the federal marshal, would be time served "in connection with" his federal offense. Cf. Brown v. United States, 489 F.2d 1036 (8th Cir.1974) (holding that a defendant held in state custody without bail solely because a federal detainer has been lodged against him is entitled to "jail credit" under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3568); Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir.1970) (same). In Winter's case, however, the state set the release date, and there is no claim that the federal authorities requested, or received, any postponement. The fact that the state Parole Board may have chosen to await the outcome of the federal appeal does not establish a sufficient connection between the state imprisonment and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Jimenez v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • June 8, 2001
    ...that time spent in state custody on a federal detainer should be credited to the federal sentence. See e.g. United States v. Winter, 730 F.2d 825 (1st Cir.1984)(federal prisoner may be entitled to credit for time spent in state prison on unrelated charge if continued state confinement was e......
  • U.S. v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • May 6, 1999
    ...the arrival of the federal marshal, would be time served "in connection with" his federal offense. Id. (quoting United States v. Winter, 730 F.2d 825, 826-27 (1st Cir.1984)). See also United States v. Smith, 812 F.Supp. 368, 369 (E.D.N.Y.1993); Doyle, 1995 WL 412406, at *6. The Sixth Circui......
  • Jake v. Herschberger
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 6, 1999
    ...officials, the state confinement is considered to be federal confinement. Bloomgren, 948 F.2d at 690 (quoting United States v. Winter, 730 F.2d 825, 826-27 (1st Cir.1984), and collecting cases); see also Jackson v. Brennan, 924 F.2d at 728 (interpreting § 3568 so that "credit must be given ......
  • Hernandez-Figueroa v. Rectenwald
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • August 19, 2016
    ...be the Federal Government . . . that decides whether he will receive credit for the time served in state custody."); U.S. v. Winter, 730 F.2d 825 (1st Cir. 1984).(Id. at 5-6). The Petitioner also challenged the BOP's calculation of his federal sentence through the BOP's administrative remed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT