United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
N. CHATIGNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
currently serving a 120-month sentence at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Danbury, brings this action for a
writ of habeas corpus challenging the computation of her
sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. The issue is whether she
is entitled to credit toward her federal sentence for time
she spent in temporary federal custody on a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum while she was serving a state sentence
in New York The Government has moved to dismiss the action on
the ground that the time petitioner spent on the federal writ
was credited toward the state sentence and thus cannot be
applied to the federal sentence. I agree and therefore
dismiss the action.
relevant facts are undisputed. On February 28, 2008,
petitioner was sentenced in New York state court to one year
of imprisonment and two years' supervised release. On May
7, 2008, U.S. Marshals took temporary federal custody of
petitioner pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum in connection with narcotics charges pending
against her in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey. A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum enables a
jurisdiction to take temporary custody of an inmate who is
confined within another jurisdiction. See Lugo v.
Hudson, 785 F.3d 852, 855 (2d Cir. 2015).
November 5, 2008, petitioner pleaded guilty in the District
of New Jersey. On November 4, 2009, she was sentenced to 61
months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of
supervised release. In the interim, on February 22, 2009,
petitioner's New York sentence ended, but she remained in
federal custody pursuant to her guilty plea to the narcotics
charges in New Jersey.
was subsequently charged with drug trafficking in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On April
5, 2010, she pleaded guilty. On July 7, 2010, she was
sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment followed by five
years of supervised release to be served concurrently with
the sentence imposed in the federal case in New Jersey.
Petitioner contends that the BOP has erroneously declined to
give her credit toward her federal sentence for the time she
spent in temporary federal custody prior to the completion of
her state sentence (i.e. May 7, 2008 to February 22, 2009).
The Government correctly argues that the BOP did not err in
refusing to credit that time against the federal sentence
because the time had already been credited toward the state
federal sentence commences when the defendant is received
into the custody of the Attorney General at the facility at
which the sentence will be served. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(a). Credit for time served prior to the
commencement of a federal sentence is computed by the
Attorney General. See United States v. Wilson, 503
U.S. 329, 333-334 (1992). The Second Circuit has held that
“[t]he Bureau of Prisons, and not the courts,
determines when a defendant's sentence starts and whether
the defendant should receive credit for any prior time spent
in custody.” United States v. Montez-Gaviria,
163 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 1998).
sentence computations are governed by 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b), which provides:
(b) Credit for prior custody. A defendant shall be given
credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any
time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the
(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant
was arrested after the commission of the offense for which
the sentence was imposed; that has not been credited against
U.S.C. § 3585(b). The Second Circuit has held that,
under this last phrase, a defendant has no right to receive
credit on a federal sentence for time that has been credited
against a prior state sentence. ...