Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06077/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06077-0/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

27

28

1

This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s response to the petition,

Respondent’s exhibits, and Petitioner’s traverse.

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD BABASA CUNANAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

RAYMOND D. ANDREWS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 03 6077 SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR

RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE THIS

ACTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties having voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate

Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), by order dated October 9, 2003, this case was

assigned to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to a judgment of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, following judgment entered on

Case 1:03-cv-06077-SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 6
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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

May 26, 2000, following his convictions of theft of firearms shipped in interstate commerce (18

U.S.C. § 922(u), and possession of an unregistered firearm (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)). See Exhibit A,

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Respondent’s Supplemental Response to

Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (hereinafter “Supplemental Response”). Petitioner

was sentenced to serve a total of fifty (50) months in federal prison. Id.

On August 11, 2003, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court. The petition challenges the method in which the Bureau of Prisons has calculated

Petitioner’s federal sentence. Specifically, Petitioner complains that his federal sentence was not

properly credited with the time he spent in state prison, and he complains that his federal sentence

was to run concurrently, not consecutively, with the state sentence. 

On October 28, 2003, Respondent filed a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Respondent concedes Petitioner has exhausted his administrative appeals.

On November 4, 2003, Petitioner filed a traverse to Respondent’s response.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or

constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence's

execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., Capaldi

v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30

n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94 (6th Cir. 1991); Brown v. United

States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). To receive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 a petitioner in

federal custody must show that his sentence is being executed in an illegal, but not necessarily

unconstitutional, manner. See, e.g., Clark v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371, 372, 374 (9th Cir. 1995)

(contending time spent in state custody should be credited toward federal custody); Jalili, 925 F.2d

at 893-94 (asserting petitioner should be housed at a community treatment center); Barden, 921 F.2d

at 479 (arguing Bureau of Prisons erred in determining whether petitioner could receive credit for

Case 1:03-cv-06077-SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

time spent in state custody); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677 (challenging content of inaccurate pre-sentence

report used to deny parole). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian. Brown, 610 F.2d at

677. Petitioner is currently in custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at Taft Correctional Institution 

located in Taft, California, which is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a); 2241(d).

II. Review of Claims

A. Ground One

In his first ground for relief, Petitioner contends the Bureau of Prisons improperly calculated

his sentence by failing to give credit against his federal sentence for the time he spent in federal

custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum while awaiting sentencing on federal

charges. Petitioner was serving time in state prison on a state conviction for burglary when he was

“borrowed” from the State of California from November 18, 1999, through June 12, 2000, via the

writ of habeas corpus as prosequendum. Petitioner did not receive credit against his federal sentence

for those seven months. On March 18, 2002, Petitioner was paroled from state custody and received

by the U.S. Marshal. Petitioner has been incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons since March 18, 2002.

The authority to compute a federal prisoner’s sentence is delegated to the Attorney General

who exercises it through the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,

334-35 (1992); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1091

(1999); 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a).

18 U.S.C. § 3585 provides:

(a) Commencement of sentence. - A sentence to a term if imprisonment 

commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting 

transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the 

official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.

(b) Credit for prior custody. - A defendant shall be given credit toward the 

service of a term if imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention 

prior to the date the sentence commences - 

(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or

(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after 

the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed;

Case 1:03-cv-06077-SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 3 of 6
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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

that has not been credited against another sentence.

(Emphasis added.) 

This Court concludes that the BOP’s computation of Petitioner’s federal sentence is proper. 

Petitioner is not entitled to any credit against his federal sentence for time spent in state custody prior

to the date his federal sentence was imposed, because the time Petitioner spent while borrowed from

the State’s custody via the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was credited against his state

sentence. Under § 3585(b), Petitioner may not receive double credit. Accordingly, the BOP’s

computation of Petitioner’s federal sentence was proper, and Petitioner’s claim must be denied. 

Nevertheless, Petitioner contends the time spent while “on loan” from the State of California

should be construed as custody for purposes of computing his federal sentence. Petitioner cites to

Brown v. Perrill, 28 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir.1994), the Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5880.28,

Sentence Computation Manual-CCCA, and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(b) for this

proposition.

In Brown v. Perrill, the Court of Appeals found that a petitioner’s federal custody pursuant to

a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for a duration of over two years transmuted into federal

custody. 28 F.3d at 1075. The Tenth Circuit was “unwilling to infer that a federal detention and

control pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum may last for such an extended

period . . . . absent a clear directive from the state authorities .” Id. In this case, Petitioner was under

federal control and detention for less than seven (7) months. This Court does not find such a period

of time so extended as to transmute into federal custody.

The BOP Program Statement 5880.28 provides that time spent under a writ of habeas corpus

ad prosequendum constitutes secondary custody and is not to be considered for crediting presentence

time. Here, Petitioner was “on loan” from the State and then returned to the State once sentenced.

Petitioner received credit against his state sentence for this period of time. He may not receive

double credit.

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(b) is a provision to be considered at the time of

sentencing by the sentencing court. Respondent correctly argues that such a claim is not proper in a

habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988)

Case 1:03-cv-06077-SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 4 of 6
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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 5

(A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his conviction or

sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255).

Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to credit against his federal sentence for the time he spent

in federal detention pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, and his claim must be

rejected.

B. Ground Two

Petitioner also claims that his federal sentence was to run concurrently with his state

sentence, not consecutively. 

As previously noted, on May 22, 2000, Petitioner was sentenced by the U.S. District Court

for the Northern District of California to a term of 50 months in federal prison. However, the order

was silent as to whether the sentence was run concurrently or consecutively. Petitioner remained in

state custody until March 18, 2002, when he was paroled from the state custody and received by the

U.S. Marshal. It is this time period that Petitioner contends should be credited. 

18 U.S.C. § 3584 states that “[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times

run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.” However, as

Respondent notes, the presumption applies only if the federal sentencing court was aware of a

sentence previously imposed but not yet discharged. See United States v. Clayton, 927 F.2d 491 (9th

Cir.1991); United States v. Wills, 881 F.2d 823, 826 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1989). Here, Petitioner was

serving a state sentence when his federal sentence was pronounced. In addition, the sentencing

recommendation provided by the U.S. Probation Office recommended that Petitioner’s term “run

consecutive to any other sentence.” See Exhibit C, Supplemental Response. 

Accordingly, under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, Petitioner’s federal sentence is presumed to run

consecutively to his state sentence. Thus, Petitioner’s federal sentence did not commence until he

was taken into custody by the U.S. Marshal. The claim must be rejected.

C. Other Claims

In his traverse, Petitioner raises a new claim. Specifically, Petitioner contends the BOP’s

refusal to grant Petitioner credit against his federal sentence violates his right of protection from

Case 1:03-cv-06077-SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 5 of 6
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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 6

double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The claim will not be

addressed because "[a] Traverse is not the proper pleading to raise additional grounds for relief."

Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1994). 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Respondent’s request for judicial notice of exhibits is GRANTED;

2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice; and

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent and terminate the

instant action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06077-SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 6 of 6