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.

Frank Matthews, Jr v. Lisa J. Hollingsworth

June 27, 2011

FRANK MATTHEWS, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
LISA J. HOLLINGSWORTH, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:

ORDER

Introduction & Background

Pending is petitioner Frank Matthews's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), and petitioner's two motions for status report (Docs. 19 & 20). For the following reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The motions for status report are DENIED as moot.

Petitioner is a prisoner confined at USP-Marion and challenges the Bureau of Prison's calculation of his 180 month federal prison term, claiming he should have received credit for approximately thirteen months served in pretrial custody between March 15, 1999, and April 10, 2000.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") on July 12, 2010 (Doc. 13). The Report recommends that the Court deny petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismiss his cause of action. Specifically, Judge Frazier found the time of petitioner's detention between March 15, 1999 and April 10, 2000 was being credited toward a Tennessee state sentence, and that 18 U.S.C. § 3585 prohibits double credit. In other words, because time from March 1999 to April 2000 was counted against a state sentence, it could not be counted a second time against petitioner's pending federal sentence.

Upon issuance, the R&R was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" within fourteen days of service (Doc. 13-2). Neither party initially filed timely objections, leading this Court to adopt the R&R and order the action dismissed (Doc. 14). Upon petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16), this Court re-opened the case upon determining petitioner may not have been properly served a copy of the R&R (Doc. 17). Petitioner was given until September 14, 2010 to file his objections to the R&R(Doc. 17). Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed his objections (Doc. 18).

Petitioner's objections basically re-state arguments he made in his Traverse Response (Doc. 12), indicating he disagrees with the magistrate's reasoning based upon the language in 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) that "[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 sentence commences." As for the last words of § 3585(b), "that has not been credited against another sentence," petitioner merely states that "there is no double credit involved which is due to the fact that that 18 U.S.C. 924(e) or penalties are note listed anywhere among the alleged offenses charged by the state" (Doc. 18 at p. 4). Petitioner further objects to the R&R's reference to Bureau of Prisons Program Statement and also makes an effort to distinguish case authority cited in the R&R.

Since timely objections have been filed, this Court must undertake de novo review of the Report.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 73.1(b); Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992).The Court may "accept, reject or modify the recommended decision." Willis v. Caterpillar Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the Court must look at all the evidence contained in the record and give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made. Id.

Based on the pleadings and the applicable law, the Court adopts the Report.

Facts

In March, 1998, petitioner Matthews was sentenced to an eight-year term of confinement in Davidson County, Tennessee, for aggravated robbery. The state court of Tennessee suspended the term of imprisonment and placed petitioner on probation for seven years. While under supervision, petitioner was arrested for evading arrest, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, felon in possession of a weapon, and resisting arrest. This arrest also resulted in the instant federal offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).

Tennessee revoked the Petitioner's probation supervision on October 16, 1998 and sentenced him to eight years imprisonment. An arrest warrant was executed on March 15, 1999, for the federal offense of felon in possession of a firearm with an enhanced penalty of at least 15 years. The U.S. District Court essentially took advantage of Matthews' custody with the state of Tennessee by issuing an order to produce, and petitioner was transferred to federal custody for his initial appearance. Petitioner was returned to the state the same day. On February 29, 2000, the U.S. District Court issued another order to produce, directing petitioner be transferred to federal custody for sentencing on April 10, 2000. The order further directed petitioner be returned to the custody of state authorities upon conclusion of the federal proceedings.

On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court sentenced petitioner to 180 months imprisonment to run concurrently with his "current TDOC [state] term of imprisonment." See Doc. 10-1 ¶ 7. After sentencing, petitioner was returned to the Tennessee state authorities where, on July 21, 2004, he completed his state sentence. Petitioner was then released to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The Bureau of Prisons has computed petitioner's sentence using a commencement date of April 10, 2000, the date of his sentencing. Petitioner received a credit of forty-two days for his detention from September 4, 1998 through October 15, 1998, the day before his state sentence started to run. With Petitioner's 180-month sentence, forty-two days previous custody ...


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.