Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0280-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jayconus Cornellius SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-6524.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2011.
    Decided June 21, 2011.
    
      Jayeonus Cornellius Scott, Appellant pro se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jayeonus Cornellius Scott appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking credit toward his prison sentence imposed after the revocation of his term of supervised release. Upon revocation of Scott’s supervised release, which was imposed as part of his sentence for conspiracy to defraud the United States, the district court sentenced Scott to six months’ imprisonment in February 2011. In April 2011, Scott moved the district court for credit toward the revocation sentence, arguing that he was entitled to credit for time served in a state prison from September 22, 2010 until sentencing on February 14, 2011.

District courts, however, are not authorized to compute credit for time spent in official detention when sentencing a convict. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). Rather, only the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons, may compute sentencing credit. Id. at 334-35, 112 S.Ct. 1351. The district court was therefore without the authority to award Scott credit for the time he spent in state custody.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Scott, No. 7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.