Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leonard Clark v. Ricardo Rios

June 9, 2011

LEONARD CLARK, PETITIONER,
v.
RICARDO RIOS, WARDEN WARDEN.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid United States District Judge

E-FILED Thursday, 09 June, 2011 08:33:02 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

The Petitioner, Leonard Clark, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a person in federal custody. For the following reasons, the Petition [#1] is denied.

Background

The Petitioner, Leonard Clark, is a federal inmate currently in custody at the Federal Correctional Institution in Pekin, Illinois. The Petitioner was arrested on October 20, 2001 for possession of a controlled substance and aggravated use of a weapon. The Petitioner pleaded guilty to the state charges and was sentenced on January 28, 2003 to six years in prison.

On June 27, 2003, while serving his state sentence, the Petitioner appeared before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on a criminal complaint pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and remained on loan to federal authorities throughout his federal prosecution. On April 13, 2004, while still on federal writ, the Petitioner was discharged from state custody.

On January 28, 2005, the Petitioner was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to an aggregate sentence of 360 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

The Petitioner's 360-month federal sentence commenced on January 28, 2005, and the Bureau of Prison's (BOP) has credited the Petitioner's federal sentence with 289 days of prior custody credit for the period of April 14, 2004 through January 27, 2005.

On February 9, 2011, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the BOP's computation of the Petitioner's projected release date. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies,

Jurisdiction and Venue

The Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Further, venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois because Petitioner is in custody at a BOP facility within this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); see also, Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 758-59 (7th Cir. 2004).

Analysis

The Petitioner argues that the BOP has incorrectly computed his projected release date because it has failed to grant prior custody credit for the period of October 20, 2001 through April 4, 2004 against his federal sentence. The Petitioner argues, in his reply brief, that USSG § 5G1.3 should operate to allow his time served on the Illinois sentence to be applied toward service of his federal sentence because "the state offense was a related case for purposes of Guidelines calculations." Petitioner argues that he was sentenced for the same crime because some of his actions in the state case made up part of the conspiracy charges in this case. This argument has no merit.

The BOP has properly computed the Petitioner's sentence. Under 18 U.S.C. §3585(a), a federal sentence of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served. Further, §3585(b) forbids the BOP from giving credit for presentence custody when ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.