Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02108/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tony Ray Wicker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

TONY RAY WICKER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-2108 

(D.C. No. CR-260-01-SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

After judgment and sentencing Tony Ray Wicker filed a motion 

to receive 598 days credit on his sentence for time he alleges he 

served awaiting disposition of his federal charges. The district 

court denied that motion by an order entered April 8, 1991. 

Wicker filed a notice of appeal on May 6, 1991. 

* 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: 91-2108 Document: 010110092101 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 1 
f 

The government argues that this court does not have jurisdiction because the appeal was not filed within the ten days required 

by Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). If this post-judgment activity is 

treated as an appeal from a denial of a motion filed in the criminal case it is governed by the ten-day limit of Rule 4(b) and is 

untimely. Klink v. United States, 308 F.2d 775, 776 (10th Cir. 

1962). An untimely filing is a jurisdictional defect which prevents us from entertaining the appeal. See United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 224 (1960); United States v. Leonard, 937 

F.2d 494 (10th Cir. 1991). On the other hand, if the appeal is 

from a denial of relief under 28 u.s.c. § 2255, the thirty-day 

civil rule limit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) applies, and the appeal 

was timely. See Klink, 308 F.2d at 776. The motion itself is 

unclear, but the certificate of service attached calls it a 

"Motion to receive jail time credit a sentence in accordance with 

title 28 U.S.C. 2255." IR. Doc. 103 at 5. We resolve the doubt 

in favor of the prose pleader and treat it as a § 2255 motion; 

thus, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. 

The government argues alternatively that we must order dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We agree. 

The presentence report gave Wicker jail time credit against his 

sentence of 72 days (8/24/87 to 11/3/87). The record contains an 

"Inmate Request to Staff Member" dated 2/2/90 requesting 

additional jail time credit for the period 12/17/87 to 4/6/88. A 

notation under "disposition" indicates that the request was 

granted, giving Wicker a total of 183 days of jail time credit. 

That total is also reflected in a sentence monitoring computation 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2108 Document: 010110092101 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 2 
, • 

data sheet dated 10/5/90. There is some confusion because another 

data sheet dated 10/11/90 states the credit as 82 days. (We are 

also unsure where the district court obtained the figure of 155 

jail credit days stated in its order denying relief.) 

Regardless of the true credit figure, nothing in the record 

before us shows that Wicker ever sought through administrative 

channels the 598 days his motion requests. There is an 

administrative procedure by which an inmate can apply for and 

obtain review of his presentence jail time credits. 28 C.F.R. 

S 542.10-.16. "It is the administrative responsibility of the 

Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of 

Prisons to compute sentences and apply credit where it is due. It 

is not the province of the sentencing court." United States v. 

Clayton, 588 F.2d 1288, 1292 (9th Cir. 1979). 

We AFFIRM the district court's denial of relief. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-2108 Document: 010110092101 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 3