Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01278/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01278-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

This is the second petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1

§ 2241 filed by petitioner. Petitioner filed a Section 2241

petition on August 19, 2005 in CV-F-05-1061 REC. This petition was

denied by Order filed on August 29, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS DAVID HAGBERG, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1278 REC/LJO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

"SECTION 2241 PETITION TO

GET CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED"

AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT 

On October 6, 2005, petitioner Thomas David Hagberg,

proceeding in pro per, filed a "2241 Petition to Get Credit for

Time Served".1

Petitioner contends that the Ninth Circuit “ruled that my

sentence was illegally enhanced” and that, when his sentence is

recalculated “without the illegal enhancements”, the calculation

of his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines is 12-

Case 1:05-cv-01278-REC-LJO Document 2 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

18 months. Because petitioner has served 15 months and the “fact

that the Bureau of Prisons requires defendants to serve 85% of

their sentence means that defendant has completed his sentence

and needs to be released.” In addition, petitioner contends that

he is “owed credit towards my sentence for the time under which I

was held no-bail by a federal detainer - this is 32 months time

that has not yet been credited towards my sentence.” Finally,

petitioner contends that he is “owed time concurrent with my

state sentence because of the 3 years of arbitrary and illegal

delays by the prosecution in bringing defendant to trial.” 

The petition for release pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is

denied. Petitioner is scheduled to appear in this court on

October 31, 2005 for re-sentencing pursuant to the Ninth

Circuit’s remand. In remanding this case, the Ninth Circuit

remanded the sentence enhancement issues for limited

reconsideration in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409

F.3d 1073 (9 Cir. 2005). Therefore, petitioner’s sentence will th

be determined at that time. 

To the extent that petitioner contends that he is entitled

to credit for time served, petitioner is challenging the

execution of his sentence. See United States v. Giddings, 740

F.2d 770 (9 Cir. 1984). Such a challenge must be addressed to th

the district court which has jurisdiction over petitioner or his

custodian. Because petitioner is incarcerated at the federal

prison in Lompoc, California, he must file his Section 2241

petition challenging his entitlement to credit for time served in

Case 1:05-cv-01278-REC-LJO Document 2 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

the United States District Court for the Central District of

California.

To the extent petitioner claims that his right to a speedy

trial was violated in No. CR-F-00-5371 REC, petitioner cannot

make such a claim in this petition. Petitioner filed a motion to

vacate, set aside or correct sentence in this court on March 29,

2004, No. CV-F-04-5502 REC, in which he claimed that his right to

a speedy trial was violated. By Order filed on May 13, 2004, the

court denied petitioner’s Section 2255 motion. Therefore,

petitioner’s claim has been resolved and cannot be revisited in a

Section 2241 motion.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Petitioner Thomas David Hagberg’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01278-REC-LJO Document 2 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 3