Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01187/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William A. Perrill
Appellee
Julian Roger Sanchez
Appellant

Document Text:

\ 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JULIAN ROGER SANCHEZ, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 

) 

WILLIAM A. PERRILL, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

FII.ED 

Unltod States i:o•rt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

JAN • 5 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

95-1187 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 95-N-163) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Julian Roger Sanchez., pro se. 

Henry L. Solano, United States Attorney, and Martha A. Paluch, 

Assistant u.s. Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee. 

Before TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 95-1187 Document: 01019280425 Date Filed: 01/05/1996 Page: 1 
Petitioner Julian Robert Sanchez was convicted in 1981 of 

unlawful possession of food stamps, in violation of 7 u.s.c. 

§§ 2012 and 2024(b). He was sentenced to a split sentence of five 

years imprisonment, suspended to four months in a treatment-type 

institution with the remainder on probation. After serving the 

four months petitioner was placed on probation. Near the end of 

his probationary period petitioner was convicted and sentenced for 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana.1 

Thereafter, petitioner's probation on the original food stamp 

conviction was revoked. The district court judgment in the revocation proceeding expressly noted the prior sentence it had 

imposed of 11 five years imprisonment, all but four months which was 

to be served in a treatment-type institution followed by probation 

of four years and eight months." Addendum at 1, It then sentenced petitioner as follows: 11 The defendant is hereby committed 

to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his 

' authorized representative for a term of one year as to counts one 

and two, said term is to run concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence imposed [on the marijuana charge] issued out 

of this district. 11 I d. 

Petitioner sought to have the Bureau of Prisons calculate 

this one-year sentence by crediting against it the four months he 

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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We grant petitioner's motion to be 

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in order to reach the merits 

of his appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-1187 Document: 01019280425 Date Filed: 01/05/1996 Page: 2 
previously served before his release on probation. Prison officials notified him that they construed the district court's sen·-

tence to require the twelve months to be added to the four months 

he had previously served. The officials stated they would calculate petitioner's good time on the basis of the four months served 

befo~e probation plus the twelve months after. Thus petitioner 

would have to serve the full twelve months additional time at the 

end of the service of the marijuana sentence reduced by whatever 

good time credits were earned based on a sixteen-month sentence. 

Petitioner's suit in district court challenged that determination. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and ruled against petitioner. On appeal he argues that 

the district court acted without jurisdiction because the Bureau 

of Prisons had the exclusive authority to calculate the sentence. 

This misperceives the district court's determination. Petitioner 

already had lost in his administrative appeal before the Bureau of 

Prisons. Thus, the only avenue remaining to him was the challenge 

he initiated in the instant case, to ask the district court, and 

now this court, to determine that the Bureau of Prisons construetion of the sentence imposed upon petitioner was erroneous. 

We agree with the district court that the Bureau of Prisons 

properly interpreted the district court's judgment. That court 

had the power to order any amount of additional incarceration as 

' 

long as the total incarceration did not exceed the original fiveyear term. 18 u.s.c. § 3653. The better practice, of course, 

would have been for the district court to discuss this issue specifically. But when, particularly after having mentioned that 

-3-

Appellate Case: 95-1187 Document: 01019280425 Date Filed: 01/05/1996 Page: 3 
petitioner had served four months in a treatment~type institution, 

the district court ordered twelve months to be served consecutively to the term for the marijuana conviction, the most logical-

-and we hold proper--reading is that the judge intended twelve 

more months of incarceration rather than twelve months as reduced 

by the four months served several years before. This construction 

is in accord with that given by all of the other circuit courts 

that have considered the issue. United States v. Kendis, 883 F.2d 

209, 211 (3d Cir. 1989) ("when a convicted defendant receives less 

than the maximum possible sentence, it is presumed that the trial 

court has credited defendant with time already served unless the 

record shows otherwise''); Davis y. United States, 790 F,2d 716, 

718 (8th Cir. 1986); Ochoa y, Lennon, 750 F.2d 1345, 1348-49 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979 (1985); Granger y, United 

States, 688 F.2d 1296, 1297 (9th Cir. 1982). Cf. Davis v. Willingham, 415 F.2d 344, 345 (lOth Cir. 1969) (same presumption for 

presentence custody time when court's sentence is less than the 

maximum sentence that could have been imposed) . 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 95-1187 Document: 01019280425 Date Filed: 01/05/1996 Page: 4