Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03084/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Dunn
Appellant
Linda Sanders
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3084

___________

Michael Dunn, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Linda Sanders, Warden, FCI- *

Forrest City, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2007

 Filed: September 20, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Michael Dunn appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s)

denial of his request for a nunc pro tunc designation that the state prison where he

served a 5-year state sentence was the place for service of part of his 36-month federal

sentence. We reverse and remand.

In March 2003 Dunn was arrested and, in April, his parole from a 12-year

Missouri state sentence was revoked after drugs and a gun were found in his home.

In July he pleaded guilty to a federal firearm charge and in September he was

Appellate Case: 06-3084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353719
-2-

sentenced to 36 months in federal prison and then returned to state authorities to serve

the remainder of his 12-year state sentence. In January 2004 state drug charges were

lodged against him in Missouri and, despite being paroled in April 2004, he remained

in state custody and was subsequently convicted on the new state charges. In May he

was sentenced to 5 years in state prison. He was initially transferred to a federal

prison to begin service of his federal sentence, but was transferred back in August to

state authorities to first serve his 5-year state sentence. In July 2005 he was paroled

from the 5-year state sentence and was released to federal custody to serve his 36-

month federal sentence. 

In October 2005 Dunn submitted a request to the BOP for nunc pro tunc

designation, requesting 15 months of credit toward his federal sentence for the time--

from May 2004 to July 2005--that he had spent in state custody on the 5-year state

sentence. The BOP’s decision in Dunn’s administrative appeal indicates that in

denying Dunn’s request, the BOP relied almost exclusively on a January 2006 letter

from the federal sentencing judge, responding to the BOP Regional Director’s request

for clarification on whether the sentencing court intended for the federal sentence,

imposed in September 2003, to run concurrently with or consecutively to the state

sentence imposed in May 2004. In response, the sentencing judge referred the BOP

to orders issued by the sentencing court in December 2003 and September 2004.

When deciding whether to grant nunc pro tunc designation, it is appropriate for

the BOP to consider--along with other factors--the sentencing court’s intent. See 18

U.S.C. § 3621(b) (listing factors BOP should consider in determining place of

imprisonment); BOP Program Statement 5160.05 (in exercising discretion to make

concurrent designation, BOP is to consider inmate’s disciplinary history, his

institutional adjustment, any recommendations of United States Attorney or wardens

at state and federal institutions, intent of federal sentencing court if available, and any

other pertinent information). We hold that the BOP abused its discretion in this

instance, however, when it relied on the sentencing judge’s January 2006 letter, and

Appellate Case: 06-3084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353719
1

We reject Dunn’s remaining arguments: that his August 2004 transfer back to

Missouri authorities to first serve his 5-year state sentence was improper, and that

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 his 36-month federal and 5-year state sentences should

be concurrent. Missouri acquired jurisdiction over him first and that continued until

he completed serving his second Missouri sentence in July 2005, see Ponzi v.

Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260-61 (1922) (sovereign that first acquires custody of

defendant is entitled to custody until any sentence imposed is served), and section

5G1.3 does not apply here because at the time of federal sentencing Dunn was not

subject to the 5-year state sentence, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 (imposition of sentence on

defendant subject to undischarged term of imprisonment).

-3-

on the sentencing court’s December 2003 and September 2004 orders, to infer that the

sentencing court intended the federal sentence to run consecutively to the

yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. See Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478 (3d Cir.

1990) (standard of review). It is clear to us that the two orders were addressing the

question whether the federal sentence was to run consecutively to the already-imposed

state sentence of 12 years, which Dunn had resumed serving upon his state parole

revocation in April 2003. The sentencing court’s intent with regard to the federal

sentence and the May 2004 5-year state sentence cannot be ascertained based on these

orders.

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal and remand to the district court, with

directions that the district court enter an order directing the BOP to reconsider Dunn’s

request for nunc pro tunc designation, taking into account the appropriate factors,

without relying on the sentencing court’s January 2006 letter or its December 2003

and September 2004 orders.1

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2007 Entry ID: 3353719