Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03468/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03468-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3468

___________

Jack Casey Sisemore, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

T. C. Outlaw, Warden, FCI - Forrest *

City, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 22, 2010 

Filed: February 3, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Jack Sisemore appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition. After careful de novo review, see Mitchell v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we conclude that dismissal

was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a)

Appellate Case: 09-3468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Entry ID: 3630751
-2-

(sentence to term of imprisonment commences on date defendant is received in

custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of

sentence at, official detention facility at which sentence is to be served); United States

v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-35 (1992) (after district court sentences federal offender,

Attorney General, through Bureau of Prisons, has responsibility for administering

sentence, including awarding credit for time served on federal sentence); Fegans v.

United States, 506 F.3d 1101, 1103 (8th Cir. 2007) (18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) provides

Bureau of Prisons with broad discretion to choose location of inmate’s imprisonment);

Coloma v. Holder, 445 F.3d 1282, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (district

court’s order that prison term should run concurrently with prison term already being

served did not mean the two sentences had the same starting date; federal sentence

cannot commence prior to date it is pronounced, even if made concurrent with

sentence already being served).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Entry ID: 3630751