The opinion of the court was delivered by: G. Patrick Murphy United States District Judge
Petitioner Michael A. Leahy currently is confined at Residents in Transition, which is a halfway house in Peoria, Illinois. Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. He challenges the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his 60-month federal prison term, claiming that he should have received credit for approximately 7 months served in pretrial custody between August 15, 2005, and March 22, 2006. If Petitioner is correct, he is entitled to immediate release.
In February 2002, a Circuit Court Judge in Tazewell County, Illinois, sentenced Petitioner to a 30-month term of probation for unlawful use of a firearm by a felon and aggravated unlawful use of a firearm. On August 15, 2002, while on probation, Petitioner used his computer to view child pornography. He was arrested by Tazewell County authorities on August 26, 2002, and was released from state custody the following day.
Petitioner was interviewed by FBI agents in August and September 2002. On November 12, 2002, a criminal complaint and warrant for Petitioner's arrest were issued in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. On November 22, 2002, Petitioner was indicted in that court on child pornography and criminal forfeiture charges, and another warrant was issued. Petitioner moved to England before either arrest warrant was executed.
In March 2005, Petitioner was arrested in London, England, on weapons charges. He was convicted by the Crown Court and sentenced to serve 18 months in a British prison. The weapons charges were not related to the federal child pornography and forfeiture charges. However, the London arrest alerted U.S. authorities to Petitioner's whereabouts, and on August 15, 2005, while serving his British sentence, Petitioner was arrested at the Bow Street Magistrate's Court on a provisional warrant issued under the Extradition Act 2003. He was remanded in British custody pending further extradition proceedings.
On March 22, 2006, Petitioner completed his British sentence. The time served between August 15, 2005, and March 22, 2006, was credited toward the 18-month sentence imposed by the Crown Court. Petitioner remained in custody pending extradition proceedings. He was released by British officials on April 19, 2006, and was taken into custody by authorities on behalf of the United States on the child pornography and forfeiture charges.
In November 2006, Petitioner appeared in federal court and pleaded guilty to two counts of the federal indictment. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the remaining count was dismissed, no additional charges were filed, and the parties agreed to general sentencing parameters (see Doc. 11-2).
On March 2, 2007, District Judge Michael M. Mihm sentenced Petitioner to 60 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. After a lengthy allocution by Petitioner, Judge Mihm made certain recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding Petitioner's confinement, including (1) placement, if consistent with security interests, close to family in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; (2) placement, for part of his term, in the sex offender treatment program at SCI Butler in North Carolina; and (3) placement in a comprehensive drug treatment program. Judge Mihm added, in concluding the hearing:
The Court: Obviously, you will be given full credit for all time you have been in custody since that date in August of '05.
[Petitioner]: I think it's two years, one month more.
The Court: Whatever that is, you will certainly be entitled to that. (Doc. 1, p. 16).
The BOP calculated Petitioner's sentence several times. The most recent calculation awarded 346 days of jail credit for August 26 through 27, 2002, and March 23, 2006, through March 1, 2007. This calculation reflects the fact that Petitioner, despite being arrested on the provisional warrant on August 15, 2005, was serving his British sentence until March 22, 2006. By contrast, Petitioner contends that he should be given credit for the time spent in British custody from the date of his arrest on the provisional warrant because Judge Mihm intended that the British and federal sentences run concurrently. The question for the Court, ...