Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06178/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06178-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LEONARD D. WHITE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.· 1.J.uU , Ur.; ;.cu 3t.at~ C<,~irt '?r A-p~~-• 

'{',rn.' ( .. CUl; 

FE£3 0 S 1992 

ROffwRT L. HOECY.5~ 

C!e!l: 

v. ) No. 91-6178 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; U.S . PAROLE 

OFFICER; ART BEELER, Warden, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-91-141-W) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner, a federal prisoner serving a six-year term of 

imprisonment following a conviction for theft of an interstate 

shipment, 18 u.s.c. § 659, appeals the district court's denial of 

his petition for habeas relief asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6178 Document: 010110222487 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 1 
The issue presented in this appeal is whether Pe titioner is 

entitled to have his current federal sentence credi t e d with time 

spent in custody prior to the federal convic tion and f or time 

served in a state prison as a result of several Oklahoma 

convictions. Having carefully considered the record and the 

parties' arguments, we affirm. 

Petitioner alleges the following facts: On February 15, 

1982, Oklahoma authorities arrested Petitioner on charges of 

possession of a stolen vehicle and possession of stolen property. 

Petitioner was released on bond on February 23. 

Federal authorities arrested Petitioner on March 5, 1982, 

based upon an indictment dated March 2, 1982, charging Petitioner 

with theft of an interstate shipment. Petitioner could not meet 

the bond on this federal charge and, therefore, he remained in 

custody in the Tulsa County Jail . 

Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the federal theft charge 

and, on June 17, 1982, the federal district court committed 

Petitioner to the custody of the United States Attorney General 

for a period of six years . Following the imposition of this 

sentence, however, Petitioner remained in the Tulsa County Jail 

awaiting resolution of the pending state charges. On July 29, 

1982, Petitioner pled guilty to the Oklahoma charge of poss ession 

of a stolen vehicle. The state court sentenced Petitioner to four 

years' imprisonment. Petitioner was then transferred to a state 

prison on August 4, 1982, to serve his state sentence. 

In October 1982, Petitioner pled guilty to state charges of 

second degree burglary and grand larceny. The state court 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6178 Document: 010110222487 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 2 
sentenced Petitioner to two four-year terms of imprisonment, to be 

served concurrently to each other and concurrently to the earlier 

state sentence. Following completion of these state sentences on 

July 16, 1984, state officials released Petitioner to the custody 

of federal authorities for service of his federal theft sentence. 

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to have his federal 

sentence credited with the time he spent in custody from March 5, 

1982, the date of his federal arrest, through July 16, 1984, the 

date Petitioner completed his state sentences. 1 Although 

Petitioner was in custody, beginning March 5, 1982, based upon the 

federal theft charge, Respondents submitted, as an exhibit to 

their response to the habeas petition, a letter from an official 

of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections which indicated that the 

state had credited Petitioner's state sentences for the time he 

spent in custody prior to either the federal or the state 

convictions. I R. doc. 6, Ex. 4 of Ex. o. Petitioner did not 

contest the accuracy of this letter. See Blango v. Thornburgh, 

942 F.2d 1487, 1493 (10th Cir. 1991). Petitioner is not entitled 

to have the time spent in pretrial custody credited to both his 

state and his federal sentences. See, e.g., Goode v. McCune, 543 

F.2d 751, 753 (10th Cir. 1976). 

1 Petitioner has not challenged, in the district court or on 

appeal, the recomputation of his federal sentence in light of two 

parole revocations. Rather, Petitioner has asserted that, because 

he should have received credit for his federal pretrial detention 

and the time served in state prison on the Oklahoma convictions, 

his federal sentence should have expired prior to the most recent 

revocation of his federal parole. Petitioner, thus, asserts that, 

at the time of his second parole revocation, the United States 

Parole Commission was without authority to retake Petitioner into 

custody. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6178 Document: 010110222487 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 3 
Petitioner next argues that he began serving the federal 

theft sentence on the day that sentence was imposed, June 17, 

1982. A federal sentence, however, does not commence on the day 

the sentencing court imposes the sentence; rather, a federal 

sentence "shall commence to run from the date on which" the person 

convicted of a federal offense "is received at the penitentiary, 

reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence." 18 u.s.c. 

§ 3568 (repealed, but applicable to offenses committed prior to 

November 1, 1987); see also Anderson v. United States, 405 F.2d 

492, 493 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 965 (1969). 

Petitioner was not received at a federal prison for service of the 

federal sentence until he had completed serving the state 

sentences, on July 16, 1984, and state 

Petitioner into federal custody. 

officials released 

Lastly, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to have his 

federal sentence credited with time spent in state custody based 

upon the Oklahoma conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle 

because both the federal theft conviction and the state possession 

conviction were based upon the same conduct. Section 3568 

requires the Attorney General to give a prisoner "credit toward 

service of his sente nce for any days spent in custody in 

connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was 

imposed." The purpose of this provision 

is to cover a condition where the defendant may have 

been arrested for a crime but subsequently is c onvicted 

of a lesser crime; thus, under (this provisio n ], even 

though convicted of a lesser crime, he is give n credit 

for the time spent in custody while awaiting tri al on 

the charge of a greater crime 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6178 Document: 010110222487 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 4 
United States v. Baez, 732 F.2d 780, 782 (10th Cir. 1984)(quoting 

H.R. Rep. No. 1541, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinte d in 2 U.S. 

Cong. & Ad.min. News 1966, 2293, 2294-95). "'[T]here is no 

statutory provision that accords a prisoner credit against a 

federal sentence for time served in a state prison on a state 

charge,'" Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 

199l)(quoting Raines v. United States Parole Comm'n, 829 F.2d 840, 

843 (9th Cir. 1987)), "even when the identical criminal 'acts' 

formed the basis for both the federal and state prosecutions," 

Jackson v. Brennan, 924 F.2d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 199l)(dicta). See 

also Goode, 543 F.2d at 752-53. 

Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to credit on his 

current federal sentence for time spent in custody from March 5, 

1982, to July 16, 1984. The judgment of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6178 Document: 010110222487 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 5