Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_07-cv-00131/USCOURTS-ared-2_07-cv-00131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Earl Cox
Plaintiff
Tim Outlaw
Defendant

Document Text:

1

The record suggests that the case number is actually 15RO19800123. See Document 5, Attachment

3. Because respondent Tim Outlaw references the case number as CR 198-123F, the Court will do likewise.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM EARL COX PETITIONER

v. NO. 2:07CV00131 HDY

TIM OUTLAW, Warden, RESPONDENT

FCI Forrest City, Arkansas

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PRIOR STATE AND FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS. On December 14, 1988, petitioner

William Earl Cox (“Cox”) pleaded guilty in Lafayette County, Missouri, Circuit Court to

state charges of unlawful use of a weapon and driving while intoxicated. See State of

Missouri v. Cox, CR-198-123F.1 He was sentenced for the offenses to a five year term of

probation.

On April 11, 2003, while serving the term of probation ordered in CR 198-123F, Cox

was arrested by Missouri authorities on a state charge of misdemeanor possession of

marijuana. He was not detained but was released from custody. Although the charge

was later dismissed, his conduct related to the charge eventually resulted in his

indictment by a federal grand jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 14
-2-

On April 14, 2003, Cox was arrested by Missouri authorities on a state charge of

tampering with a witness. He was detained by Missouri authorities and remained in their

custody for several months. The charge was later dismissed, however, when federal

authorities made known their intention to prosecute him for the same conduct.

On July 21, 2003, while Cox remained in the custody of Missouri authorities, the

term of probation ordered in CR 198-123F was revoked. He was sentenced to a term of

four years imprisonment in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. For

some reason not apparent from the record, the commencement of the four year term

of imprisonment was apparently stayed for ten days, and he was released from state

custody for those ten days.

On July 22, 2003, Cox was indicted in a two count federal indictment in the United

States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. See United States v. Cox, 03-

00230-01-CR-W-DW. In count one, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a

firearm, a charge that sprang from his conduct related to his April 11, 2003, arrest by

Missouri authorities. In count two, he was charged with threatening a witness, a charge

that sprang from his conduct related to his April 14, 2003, arrest by Missouri authorities.

On July 31, 2003, or ten days after Cox was released from state custody, he

surrendered to Missouri authorities. The following day, or on August 1, 2003, he was

committed to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections to begin serving the

four year term of imprisonment imposed in CR 198-123F.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 14
2

Judge Whipple sentenced Cox on count one to 180 months imprisonment and on count two to 120

months imprisonment, the terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently. See United States v. Cox, 130

Fed.Appx. 843, 2005 WL 1123563 (8th Cir. 2005).

-3-

On August 4, 2003, federal authorities obtained temporary custody of Cox from

Missouri authorities pursuant to the terms of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

He was subsequently arraigned on the federal indictment in 03-00230-01-CR-W-DW, and

he remained in federal custody until the conclusion of the federal court proceedings in

April of 2004.

On April 21, 2004, United States District Judge Dean Whipple sentenced Cox in 03-

00230-01-CR-W-DW to a term of 180 months in the custody of the Federal Bureau of

Prisons (“BOP”).2

 Judge Whipple ordered the federal sentence in 03-00230-01-CR-W-DW

to be served concurrently with the state sentence in CR 198-123F.

On April 27, 2004, federal authorities returned temporary custody of Cox to

Missouri authorities. He remained in the custody of Missouri authorities until the

completion of the state sentence in CR 198-123F.

On August 9, 2004, Cox was paroled from the state sentence in CR 198-123F. He

did not gain his freedom, though, but was instead transferred to federal authorities for

the purpose of serving the federal sentence imposed by Judge Whipple in 03-00230-01-

CR-W-DW. Cox came to be housed at the Federal Correctional Complex - Medium

Security Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas, the warden of which is respondent Tim

Outlaw (“Outlaw”).

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 14
-4-

BOP CALCULATION OF COX’S FEDERAL SENTENCE. At some point after Cox entered

federal custody, the BOP provided him with a calculation of the 180 month federal

sentence imposed by Judge Whipple in 03-00230-01-CR-W-DW. The calculation

reflected, inter alia, that a nunc pro tunc designation had been granted pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 3621(b), thereby allowing his federal sentence to commence on the date it was

imposed, or April 21, 2004. The calculation also reflected that 101 days of jail credit had

been granted, the credits being as follows:

(1) for April 11, 2003, or the day he was arrested by Missouri

authorities on a state charge that later resulted in his indictment in 03-

00230-01-CR-W-DW of being a felon in possession of a firearm;

(2) for the period from April 14, 2003, to July 21, 2003, or the period

during which he was held in state custody for the conduct that eventually

resulted in his indictment in 03-00230-01-CR-W-DW of tampering with a

witness; and

(3) for July 31, 2003, or the day he surrendered to Missouri

authorities to begin serving the four year term of imprisonment imposed

in CR 198-123F.

Based on this calculation, the BOP notified Cox that he could expect to be released from

BOP custody, “via [g]ood [t]ime [r]elease, on February 3, 2017.” See Document 5,

Declaration of Daniel R. Severson at 3.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 4 of 14
-5-

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. Cox disagreed with the calculation of his federal

sentence and commenced a series of administrative grievances in an attempt to correct

what he perceived to be the error. His position throughout the administrative process

appears to be reflected in the following grievance:

This is my request for relief, pursuant to Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476

(3rd Cir. 1990), and Trowell v. Beeler, NO. 04-6531 (4th Cir. 2005), that my

federal sentence run concurrent with my state sentence. It was the intent

of my sentencing courts that my time served be designated as served in a

federal facility. See 18 U.S.C. 3621 and Program Statement 5880.28.

Therefore, please credit the time served toward my sentence.

See Document 2, Exhibit D at 1. The position of the BOP throughout the administrative

process appears to be reflected in the following response:

[BOP] Program Statement 5880.28, Sentence Computation Manual ... in

accordance with Title 18, U.S.C. [section] 3585(a) states, “In no case can

a federal sentence of imprisonment commence earlier than the date on

which it is imposed.” Your case was also reviewed in accordance with

Willis v. U.S., 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971). The decision in Willis provides

that prior custody credits shall be given for any time spent in non-federal

presentence custody that begins on or after the date of the federal offense

up to the date that the first sentence begins to run, federal or non-federal.

In addition, Title 18, U.S.C. [section] 3585 (b), provides, “A defendant shall

be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time

he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence

commences ... that has not been credited against another sentence.”

Therefore, prior custody credit was applied to your federal term for April

11, 2003; April 14, 2003 through July 21, 2003, and July 31, 2003, for a

total of 101 days credit. As the time period from August 1, 2003, through

April 20, 2004, was spent in service of your state sentence it cannot be

applied to your federal term.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 5 of 14
-6-

Your request for further credit under Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3rd

Cir. 1990), is not applicable, as the sentencing Judge was fully aware of

your undischarged state charges and took them into consideration when he

ordered your federal sentence to run concurrent with your state sentence.

Your sentence has been computed as directed by federal statute and

Program Statement 5880.28, Sentence Computation Manual ...

See Document 2, Exhibit B at 2. When Cox failed to obtain the relief he requested, he

commenced the proceeding at bar.

THIS PROCEEDING. Cox commenced this proceeding by filing a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. In his petition, he advanced the following

assertions:

... [The BOP] refuses to reduce [my] sentence by the time spent in state

custody on a related conviction, although such sentence was ordered to be

served concurrently with [my] [f]ederal conviction, and it was the intent

of the sentencing courts that [I] should receive all credit for time served

against the [f]ederal conviction. Hereinbefore, [I] was convicted in the

state of Missouri, for the offense, inter alia, illegal use of a weapon. [I]

was sentenced thereon on July 21, 2003 to a term of 4 years concurrent

with any [f]ederal sentence, in the Missouri State Prison. Thereinafter, on

July 22, 2003, [I] was indicted in the United States District Court, Western

District of Missouri, for the offense of [p]ossession of a [f]irearm by a

[f]elon ... Importantly, this involved the same course of conduct as

charged in Missouri State Courts. In the event, the [f]ederal [c]ourt placed

a detainer against [me] at the Missouri State Prison, on August 1, 2003.

Subsequently thereto, [I] was held by [f]ederal [a]uthorities until [my]

sentencing in [f]ederal [c]ourt on April 21, 2004, at which time the

[f]ederal [c]ourt imposed a term of 180 months, concurrent with [my]

aforementioned Missouri [s]tate case.

Notwithstanding, [the] BOP refuses to fully credit all of the time [I]

was detained on the [f]ederal charges, to wit: from August 1, 2003 through

April 21, 2004.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 6 of 14
-7-

Inasmuch as [I] was detained on both state and federal charges,

which resulted in concurrent sentences, [I am] entitled to credit as against

[my] federal sentence.

See Document 2 at 2-3.

Outlaw thereafter filed an answer to Cox’s petition. Outlaw maintained in his

answer that the petition should be dismissed because Cox’s federal sentence has been

properly credited and he is entitled to no additional credit for any time he spent in state

custody.

Cox then filed a brief reply to Outlaw’s answer. Cox maintained in his reply that

it was Judge Whipple’s intent for the federal sentence to commence on the day the

federal detainer was lodged against Cox. Because the federal detainer was apparently

lodged against Cox on August 4, 2003, he maintained that his federal sentence should

have commenced on that day and the BOP has failed to properly credit his federal

sentence.

The Court has now had an opportunity to thoroughly review the entire record in

this proceeding. On the basis of that review, and for the reasons that follow, the Court

finds that Cox’s petition should be, and will be, dismissed and all requested relief

denied.

STANDARD OF REVIEW. At the outset, the Court notes that the BOP initially

possesses the exclusive authority to compute “sentence credit awards after sentencing.”

See Rodriguez v. Lamar, 60 F.3d 745, 747 (11th Cir. 1995).

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 7 of 14
3

The Court uses the phrase “first of August of 2003" for the following reason. In Cox’s petition, he

maintains that he is entitled to additional credit on his federal sentence for the period ending on April 21,

2004, and beginning on August 1, 2003, i.e., the day he was committed to the custody of the Missouri

Department of Correction to begin serving his state sentence. See Document 2 at 3. In Cox’s reply,

though, he maintains that he is entitled to additional credit on his federal sentence for the period ending

on April 21, 2004, and beginning on August 4, 2003, i.e., the day federal authorities obtained temporary

custody of him from Missouri authorities pursuant to the terms of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

-8-

Once a [prisoner] has exhausted his administrative remedies within the

BOP, the district court may review the constitutionality of the [BOP’s]

decision and its statutory construction. ... The court’s analysis, however,

is deferential: if the language of the applicable statutory provision clearly

outlines its congressional purposes, an interpreting court and

administrative agency “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed

intent of Congress.” If the statute is silent or ambiguous, however, a

reviewing court must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation unless

it is “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” ...

See Tankersley v. Fisher, 2007 WL 2021937 at 2 (N.D.Fla. 2007).

QUESTIONS AT BAR. Cox’s pro se submissions are not a model of clarity. Liberally

construing his submissions, they appear to require the Court to address the following

three questions:

(1) did the BOP properly determine the day on which Cox’s federal sentence

commenced;

(2) is Cox entitled to have the Missouri Department of Corrections designated as

the place of service of his federal sentence; and

(3) is Cox entitled to additional credit on his federal sentence for the period of

time from the first of August of 2003 through April 20, 2004.3

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 8 of 14
4

This construction of Cox’s submissions may explain why he maintains in his petition that he is

entitled to credit on his federal sentence for the period beginning on August 1, 2003.

-9-

DID THE BOP PROPERLY DETERMINE THE DAY ON WHICH COX’S FEDERAL SENTENCE

COMMENCED? Typically, a federal sentence commences on the date the prisoner is

“received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence

service of [his] sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be

served.” See 18 U.S.C. 3585(a). In this instance, however, a nunc pro tunc designation

was granted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3621(b), thereby allowing Cox’s federal sentence to

commence on the date it was imposed, i.e., April 21, 2004. Judge Whipple ordered

Cox’s federal sentence be served concurrently with his state sentence. Cox appears to

interpret Judge Whipple’s order to mean that the federal sentence did not commence

on April 21, 2004, but rather on August 1, 2003, or the day he was committed to the

custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections to begin serving his state sentence.4

BOP Program Statement 5880.28 provides that “[i]n no case can a federal

sentence of imprisonment commence earlier than the date on which it is imposed.” See

BOP Program Statement 5880.28, page 1-13. Cox’s federal sentence was imposed on

April 21, 2004, and was deemed to have commenced on that date. That construction of

his federal sentence is consistent with Program Statement 5880.28. Any other

construction, e.g., his federal sentence commenced on August 1, 2003, would be

inconsistent with Program Statement 5880.28.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 9 of 14
5

This construction of Cox’s submissions may explain why he maintains in his reply that he is entitled

to credit on his federal sentence for the period beginning on August 4, 2003.

-10-

Cox alternatively maintains that it was Judge Whipple’s intent for the federal

sentence to commence on August 4, 2003, or the date on which federal authorities

obtained temporary custody of Cox pursuant to the terms of a writ of habeas corpus ad

prosequendum.5

 His assertion is without merit for at least two reasons. First, there is

nothing in the record that supports his interpretation of Judge Whipple’s intent. Second,

the federal sentence could not have commenced prior to April 21, 2004, because a

federal sentence cannot commence earlier than the date on which it is imposed.

Liberally construing Cox’s pro se submissions, he appears to maintain that his

state sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with his federal sentence and the

effect of the order was to somehow cause both sentences to commence on August 1,

2003, or the date he was committed to the custody of the Missouri Department of

Corrections to begin serving his state sentence. The Court cannot discern whether Cox’s

state sentence was to be served concurrently with his federal sentence. See Document

5, Attachment 3. It seems unlikely because the state sentence was imposed before Cox

was even indicted for the federal offenses charged in 03-00230-01-CR-W-DW. Assuming

that his state sentence was to be served concurrently with his federal sentence, the

federal sentence could not have commenced prior to April 21, 2004, because a federal

sentence cannot commence earlier than the date on which it is imposed.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 10 of 14
-11-

IS COX ENTITLED TO HAVE THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DESIGNATED AS THE PLACE OF SERVICE OF HIS FEDERAL SENTENCE? Liberally construing

Cox’s pro se submissions, he appears to maintain that he is entitled to have the Missouri

Department of Corrections designated as the place of service of his federal sentence.

His assertion is without merit for at least two reasons. First, in light of the fact that a

nunc pro tunc designation was granted, thereby allowing his federal sentence to

commence on the day it was imposed, Cox has already received much of the relief he

seeks. Specifically, the practical effect of the nunc pro tunc designation–which caused

his federal sentence to commence on April 21, 2004–was that it established the Missouri

Department of Correction as the place of service of a portion of his federal sentence.

Second, it was not possible for the BOP to designate the Missouri Department of

Corrections as the place of service of any other portion of his federal sentence because

a federal sentence cannot commence earlier than the date on which it is imposed.

There are, however, instances in which the BOP must award credit on a federal sentence

for time spent in custody prior to the imposition of the sentence. 18 U.S.C. 3585(b)

identifies those instances, and they rest at the heart of this proceeding.

IS COX ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL CREDIT ON HIS FEDERAL SENTENCE FOR THE

PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE FIRST OF AUGUST OF 2003 THROUGH APRIL 20, 2004? 18

U.S.C. 3585 governs the calculation of a term of imprisonment. Paragraph (b) of the

statute provides the following:

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 11 of 14
6

In addition, Cox has not shown that he was ever in official federal detention as a result of any other

charge for which he was arrested after the commission of the offense charged in the federal indictment.

-12-

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

toward the service of a term of 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;

that has not been credited against another sentence.

The language of 18 U.S.C. 3585(b) is clear, and the Court will give effect to the

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds

that the BOP has followed Congress’ express intent in declining to award Cox credit for

the period of time he spent in state custody from the first of August of 2003 through

April 20, 2004.

First, as a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Cox was never in official

federal detention prior to August 9, 2004. Although it is true that he was held by federal

authorities from August 4, 2003, until April 27, 2004, he was merely “on loan” from

Missouri authorities. See United States v. Cole, 416 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2005). Because he

was merely “on loan,” he remained in the primary custody of Missouri authorities.6

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 12 of 14
7

In Willis, the petitioner sought credit on his federal sentence for the time he spent in state custody

prior to federal sentencing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that if the

petitioner was “denied release on bail [by the state] because [a] federal detainer was lodged against him,

then that was time spent in custody in connection with the (federal) offense.” See Willis v. United States,

438 F.2d at 925 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Willis credits therefore appear to be

available in those instances in which a prisoner is denied release on bail in state court because a federal

detainer has been lodged against him. See Gonzalez v. Hawke, 2006 WL 2465307 at 7 (D.N.J. 2006). In

no instance, though, are Willis credits available after the first sentence–be it state or federal–commences.

See Cotton v. Stine, 2007 WL 1191368 at 3 (E.D.Ky. 2007). (“[w]hen non-federal and federal sentences are

running concurrent to each other, [a prisoner] may receive credit for any time spent in non-federal

presentence custody that occurs on or after the date of the federal offense, up to the date the first

sentence (state or federal) commences.”) 

-13-

Second, although Cox was in official state detention beginning on April 14, 2003,

the period of time from the first of August of 2003 through April 20, 2004, has been

credited against another sentence, namely, his state sentence. He entered the custody

of the Missouri Department of Corrections on August 1, 2003, and remained in state

custody until he was paroled on August 9, 2004. That period of time–which includes the

period of time from the first of August of 2003 through April 20, 2004–was credited to his

state sentence.

Third, Cox has been awarded all of the pre-sentence jail credits to which he is

entitled under Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1971).7

 The BOP awarded

him 101 day of pre-sentence jail credit for days he spent in state custody prior to the

commencement of his state sentence. The BOP concluded that he was held on those

days for conduct related to the commission of the federal offenses charged in 03-00230-

01-CR-W-DW. Once his state sentence commenced on August 1, 2003, he was entitled

to no additional Willis credits.

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 13 of 14
8

“In Barden, the Third Circuit granted Barden a writ of habeas corpus because the BOP mistakenly

failed to recognize its power to designate a state facility nunc pro [tunc] as a place of federal confinement

where the [prisoner] could gain credit against his federal sentence for the time which the state ordered

to run concurrently with the federal sentence.” See Gonzalez v. Hawke, 2006 WL 2465307 at 6 (D.N.J.

2006). 

-14-

Last, Cox is not entitled to additional credit under Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d

476 (3d Cir.1991).8 “Barden does not authorize the BOP to award credit for time in state

custody prior to imposition of a federal sentence.” See Gonzalez v. Hawke, 2006 WL

2465307 at 6 (D.N.J. 2006). Because a nunc pro tunc designation was granted, he began

receiving credit on his federal sentence from the date it was imposed.

CONCLUSION. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds no merit to the

positions advanced by Cox in his submissions. Instead, the Court finds that the BOP has

followed the relevant federal statutes and policies in calculating his federal sentence.

His petition is therefore dismissed and all requested relief denied. Judgment will be

entered for Outlaw.

IT IS SO ORDERED this __4___ day of January, 2008.

___________________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00131-HDY Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 14 of 14