Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06329/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Michael Cody
Appellee
Omar Wahid Rauf Mahammed
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

~· .l .I...A .u LJ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U!i~ioo St.a:~::; Court of Ap;:r.1~ Tcr:l1i Circui~ 

OMAR WAHID RAUF MAHAMMED, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, R. MICHAEL 

CODY, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

,-EJ O ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Cle!"l: 

) No. 91-6329 

) (D.C. No. CIV-91-1059-A) 

) (W.D . Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Omar Wahid Rauf Mahammed was convicted 

and sentenced in federal court to one year of imprisonment for 

failure to file a federal income tax return. 26 U.S.C. § 7203. 

Before the government was able to incarcerate Petitioner in the 

federal penitentiary, however, Oklahoma obtained custody using a 

writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Petitioner was convicted 

on unrelated drug charges in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to 

fifteen years imprisonment. The government then filed a detainer, 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-6329 Document: 010110221670 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 1 
seeking to be notified of Petitioner's scheduled release date. 

Petitioner challenged the federal detainer and sentence pursuant 

to a 28 U. S.C. § 2255 habeas corpus petition, contending that he 

had served the federal sentence in state prison. He appeals from 

the district court's dismissal of the§ 2255 petition and denial 

of leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, see Fed. R. App. 

P. 24 (a). 

Petitioner's argument is based on the erroneous assumption 

that his federal sentence began on the date of sentencing. On the 

contrary, a federal sentence begins on the date a prisoner is 

received at the federal penitentiary. 18 u.s.c. S 3568; United 

States v. Dovalina, 711 F.2d 737, 739 (5th Cir. 1983); Bruss v. 

Harris, 479 F.2d 392, 393 (10th Cir. 1973). Furthermore, federal 

authorities are not required to credit state prison time unless it 

is "jail time served in connection with the federal sentence." 

Bruss, 479 F.2d at 393 (applying 18 u.s.c. § 3568). In this case, 

it is clear that the federal and state offenses were unrelated. 

Petitioner in essence is challenging the sentencing arrangement 

between the state and federal government. This, he does not have 

standing to do. 

[T]he federal government and a state are perfectly free 

to make any agreement between themselves concerning 

which of their sentences will be served first, as long 

as the prisoner is not compelled unnecessarily to serve 

his sentences in a piecemeal fashion. "A person who has 

violated the criminal statutes of both the Federal and 

State governments may not complain of the order in which 

he is tried or punished for such offenses." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6329 Document: 010110221670 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 2 
Causey v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting 

Gunton v. Squier, 185 F.2d 470, 471 (9th Cir. 1950)) . See also 

Dovalina, 711 F.2d at 739. 

Petitioner has failed to state a valid claim for relief under 

28 U.S.C . § 2255. In the absence of "a rational argument on the 

law or the facts," petitioner's request to proceed in forma 

pauperis is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 28 U. S.C. 

§ 1915(d); Coppedge v . United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962). 

SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6329 Document: 010110221670 Date Filed: 02/04/1992 Page: 3