Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01069/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01069-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Cwrtof Appeals Tenth Ch•cult 

NOVO 6 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVIDE. BLOOMGREN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ANTHONY BELASKI, Warden; UNITED 

STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-1069 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 90-F-894) 

ON THE BRIEFS: 

David E. Bloomgren, Pro Se. 

Michael J. Norton, United States Attorney and Stephen D. Shirey, 

Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for 

Respondents-Appellees. 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 1 
David E. Bloomgren, a federal prisoner, brought this prose 

petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 u.s.c. § 224l(a) 

(1988). Bloomgren contends that he should receive credit on his 

federal sentence for two periods of time during which he was 

incarcerated by the State of Wyoming. The district court referred 

the action to a magistrate, who issued a report and a 

recommendation that relief be granted. Upon objections to the 

report, the district court sent the case back to the magistrate 

for further proceedings. The magistrate then issued another 

report and recommendation that relief be denied. This report was 

adopted by the district court and Bloomgren appeals. We affirm in 

part and remand in part for further proceedings. 1 

Bloomgren was released from federal custody on an appeal bond 

on April 17, 1986. On May 26, 1986, while on federal bond, he was 

arrested by Wyoming state authorities on charges of disturbing the 

peace, resisting arrest, and attempting to cause bodily injury. 

On June 25, 1986, his federal appeal bond was revoked and a 

warrant issued for his arrest, directing that he be held without 

bond. The warrant was executed on September 3, 1986, when 

Bloomgren, who had remained in state custody after his May 26 

1 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 2 
arrest, was taken into federal custody. 

Bloomgren asserts that he is entitled to credit for the 

period from June 25, 1986, when the warrant was issued, until 

September 3, 1986, when he was taken into federal custody. He 

relies on 18 u.s.c. § 3568 (1976), repealed by Comprehensive Crime 

Control Act of 1984, ch. II,§ 212(a)(2), 98 Stat. 1987, which 

states that a federal prisoner shall be given "credit toward 

service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in 

connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was 

imposed." Bloomgren contends that the state charges which 

precipitated his arrest were bailable offenses and that he was 

denied bail due to the federal arrest warrant directing that he be 

held without bond. 

"In general, a federal prisoner cannot be given credit 

for time spent in state prison on an unrelated charge. 

Courts have qualified this rule with an exception that 

applies 'if the continued state confinement was 

exclusively the product of such action by federal lawenforcement officials as to justify treating the state 

jail as the practical equivalent of a federal one'. 

Thus if a federal detainer were lodged against a 

prisoner about to be released from state custody, any 

days that the state held him beyond what would otherwise 

have been his release date, to await the arrival of the 

federal marshal, would be time served 'in connection 

with' his federal offense." 

United States v. Winter, 730 F.2d 825, 826-27 (1st Cir. 1984) 

(citations omitted)(emphasis added); see also United States v. 

Harris, 876 F.2d 1502, 1506 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 

417, 569 (1989); United States v. Haney, 711 F.2d 113, 114 (8th 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 3 
Cir. 1983); Ballard v. Blackwell, 449 F.2d 868, 869 (5th Cir. 

1971); cf. Goode v. McCune, 543 F.2d 751, 753 (10th Cir. 1976)(no 

credit for time spent in state custody where state time was 

attributable to state charges only). 

The magistrate stated that Bloomgren "was not entitled to 

release from state custody before he was transferred to federal 

custody." Rec., vol. I, doc. 26, at 3. However, no evidence or 

authority is cited in support of this statement and we have found 

none in the record. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates 

that the charges underlying Bloomgren's state arrest were not 

bailable offenses. The record contains no clear explanation for 

Bloomgren's continued state detention by the state other than the 

existence of the federal arrest warrant directing he be held 

without bond. See rec., supp. vol. I, at 6-7. We agree with the 

Eighth Circuit that 

"[W]hen federal authorities elect to file a detainer 

against a person taken into custody under an otherwise 

bailable state offense, those authorities should have 

the burden of establishing that the filing of the 

detainer was irrelevant under the circumstances to the 

state prisoner's continued pretrial custody for the 

state offense. A federal prisoner is presumptively 

entitled to full credit for his imprisonment in state 

prisons for an otherwise bailable offense while subject 

to a federal detainer." 

Haney, 711 F.2d at 114 (emphasis added). But see Harris, 876 F.2d 

at 1506 (burden on prisoner); Shaw v. Smith, 680 F.2d 1104, 1106 

(5th Cir. 1982)(same). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 4 
Although Bloomgren has served his federal sentence and was 

released on April 2, 1991, Appellee's Br. at 5, he is still 

subject to three years of supervised release, id. Accordingly, we 

remand for the lower court to ascertain and/or articulate the 

reason for Bloomgren's state incarceration from June 25, 1986, to 

September 3, 1986, and to reassess the record under the proper 

burden. If it is determined that he should have been given credit 

for the state time served, it should be credited against his 

supervised release time. 

Bloomgren also contends that he is entitled to credit for the 

period from January 14, 1988, to October 25, 1988. On 

November 10, 1987, Bloomgren was sentenced in Wyoming state court 

on convictions for escape and assault and battery. The state 

court ordered these sentences to run concurrently with time to be 

served on Bloomgren's federal conviction, which became final on 

October 20, 1988. On January 11, 1988, Bloomgren requested that 

his federal bond be revoked and that he be allowed to begin 

serving his federal sentence. On January 14, the court discharged 

the bond but ordered that Bloomgren's request to begin serving his 

federal sentence be denied until he was taken into federal 

custody. Federal authorities refused to take custody until 

Bloomgren was eligible for parole on his state sentence, which was 

set at October 27, 1988. Bloomgren was actually released to 

federal authorities on October 25. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 5 
Bloomgren thus served his federal sentence after his state 

sentence, rather than serving them concurrently as anticipated by 

the state court. Nonetheless, Bloomgren is not entitled to credit 

on his federal sentence for time spent incarcerated on the state 

charges. The federal government has no duty to take one in 

Bloomgren's situation into custody. See Smith v. United States 

Parole Comm'n, 875 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1989). The 

determination by federal authorities that Bloomgren's federal 

sentence would run consecutively to his state sentence is a 

federal matter which cannot be overridden by a state court 

provision for concurrent sentencing on a subsequently-obtained 

state conviction. Cf. id. (decision whether parole violator will 

serve second sentence consecutively to remainder of paroled 

sentence solely within discretion of Parole Commission); Saulsbury 

v. United States, 591 F.2d 1028, 1034 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. 

denied, 444 U.S. 857 (1979). 

Finally, Bloomgren contends he is entitled to credit on his 

federal sentence while he was out on appeal bond. We disagree. 

The custody contemplated by 18 u.s.c. § 3568 does not include the 

time when a defendant is free on bond. United States v. Woods, 

888 F.2d 653, 655 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied 110 s. Ct. 1301 

(1990); Ortega v. United States, 510 F.2d 412, 413 (10th Cir. 

1975). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 6 
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in 

part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 91-1069 Document: 010110096864 Date Filed: 11/06/1991 Page: 7