Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03205/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary L. Henman
Appellee
Forrest Silva Tucker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FORREST SILVA TUCKER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.11· 1 L l.J - .. - :ted States Court of A'pp::cl• :.,m: h c· .,. T(!";tl 1rem~ 

FEB 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-3205 

GARY L. HENMAN, 

Respondent-Appellee . 

) (D.C. No. 90-CV-3416) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner, a federal prisoner serving a ten-year term of 

imprisonment following a conviction for assaulting, resisting, or 

impeding officers in the performance of their official duties, 18 

u.s.c. § 111, appeals the district court's denial of his petition 

* 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: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 1 
for habeas relief asserted under 28 u.s.c. § 2241. The issue 

presented by this appeal is whether Petitioner is entitled to 

credit on the federal sentence he is currently serving for time 

served in California on an unrelated state conviction. Upon 

careful consideration of the record and Petitioner's arguments on 

appeal, we affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief. 1 

In September 1978, a California state court convicted 

Petitioner of armed robbery and sentenced him to ten years' 

imprisonment. 

August 9, 1979. 

Petitioner escaped from California custody on 

Federal authorities, on June 10, 1983, arrested Petitioner in 

Florida on a federal bank robbery charge. See 18 u.s.c. § 2113. 

As a result of Petitioner's resisting arrest, federal authorities 

also charged Petitioner with assaulting, resisting, or impeding 

officers in the performance of their official duties. See 18 

u.s.c. S 111. The United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida convicted Petitioner of resisting federal 

officers and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment, such 

sentence to "run consecutive to any prior sentence imposed in the 

State of California, which sentence the [Petitioner] was serving 

at the time of his [escape]." Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 

Ex. A. The judgment and commitment order further ordered 

Petitioner committed to the custody of the Attorney General. Id. 

1 Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Probable Cause 

and his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis are both granted. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 2 
Following this conviction, on March 25, 1984, United States 

Marshals (Marshals) moved Petitioner to the federal prison in 

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Petitioner asserts that he was booked 

into the Lewisburg Prison on April 4, 1984, and, then, five days 

later, on April 9, 1984, he was transported to Boston, 

Massachusetts, to stand trial on the federal bank robbery charge. 

Following Petitioner's conviction for bank robbery, the United 

States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced 

Petitioner to a term of fifteen years' imprisonment, to run 

"consecutive to the California state court sentence now being 

served and concurrent with the ten (10) year sentence imposed in 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida." Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. B. That 

judgment and commitment order also ordered Petitioner committed to 

the custody of the United States Attorney General. Id. The 

Massachusetts district court subsequently reduced that sentence to 

four years' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the 

California armed robbery sentence. Id., Ex. C. 

Following the federal bank robbery conviction, California 

authorities transported Petitioner to California, where he served 

the remainder of his California sentence. On October 17, 1989, 

following completion of the state sentence, federal authorities 

took custody of Petitioner and transported him to the federal 

prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, where he began serving his ten-year 

sentence for resisting federal officers. 

Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to credit against his 

current federal sentence for the time he served in California 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 3 
following his federal convictions because, by allowing California 

authorities to extradite Petitioner to California to complete the 

state sentence before serving his federal sentence for resisting 

federal officers, federal authorities disobeyed the Florida 

district court's order committing Petitioner to the custody of the 

United States Attorney General. We disagree. 

Either the Federal or a state government may 

voluntarily surrender its prisoner to the other without 

the consent of the prisoner. Whether jurisdiction and 

custody of a prisoner shall be retained or surrendered 

is a matter of comity and is to be determined by the 

sovereign having custody ... . 

[T]he prisoner ... may not complain of or choose 

the manner or order in which each sovereign proceeds 

against him. 

Hayward v. Looney, 246 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1957)(footnote 

omitted). The Attorney General, having custody of Petitioner, had 

the discretion to enter into an agreement with the State of 

California concerning the order in which Petitioner served his 

sentences. See Hernandez v. United States Attorney Gen., 689 F.2d 

915, 919 (10th Cir. 1982)("The law of comity is such that two 

sovereigns may decide between themselves which shall have custody 

of a convicted prisoner."). 

Petitioner further asserts, however, that the Marshals acted 

contrary to the intent of the Attorney General by releasing 

Petitioner to California authorities. There is no indication that 

the Marshals' relinquishing custody of Petitioner to California 

officials was an error or was contrary to the Attorney General's 

orders. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 4 
While the record before us may not affirmatively 

show that the Attorney General of the United States 

authorized the return of [Petitioner] to the state 

authorities, there is a presumption that public officers 

will act lawfully and it will be presumed that the 

return of [Petitioner] to the state authorities was duly 

authorized, absent an affirmative showing to the 

contrary. 

Hayward, 246 F.2d at 57 (footnote omitted). 

Petitioner argues that federal authorities compe lled him to 

serve the ten-year federal sentence for resisting arrest in a 

piecemeal fashion. See Causey v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 691, 694 

(5th Cir. 1980)("[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."). Petitioner asserts that, because he began 

the service of that federal sentence with his transfer to the 

federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, following the Florida 

federal conviction for resisting arrest, his subsequent transfer 

to California to complete his state sentence unnecessarily 

interrupted the service of that federal sentence. 

A federal "sentence of imprisonment ... shall commence to 

run from the date on which such person is received at the 

penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence." 

18 u.s.c. § 3568 (repealed, but applicable to offenses committed 

prior to November 1, 1987)(emphasis added). Contrary to 

Petitioner's argument, his brief stay at the Lewisburg federal 

prison, while en route to Massachusetts to stand trial on the 

federal bank robbery charge, did not commence Petitioner's federal 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 5 
sentence for resisting arrest. Rather, Petitioner's service of 

that sentence did not begin until federal authorities took custody 

of Petitioner from California authorities following completion of 

his California sentence. 

The United States Attorney General, in releasing Petitioner 

to California authorities for completion of his state sentence 

prior to service of the federal resisting arrest sentence, 

effectuated the clear intent of the Florida federal court that 

that federal sentence be served consecutively to the partially 

completed California sentence. See Cox v. United States ex rel. 

Arron, 551 F.2d 1096, 1099 (7th Cir. 1977)(Attorney General's 

release of prisoner to state authorities was proper under 18 

U. S.C. § 4085 (repealed, but applicable to offenses committed 

before November 1, 1987), in order to effectuate federal court's 

order that federal sentence be consecutive to any other sentence). 

Contrary to Petitioner's claim that the Florida district court's 

sentence was ambiguous concerning the order in which Petitioner 

was to serve the state and federal sentences, the Florida court's 

judgment and commitment order clearly provided that the federal 

sentence was to be served consecutively to the California 

sentence. 

Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to credit on his 

federal sentence for the time served in completing the California 

sentence. The judgment of the United States District Court for 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 6 
the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. Petitioner's Motion to Add 

Respondents is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-3205 Document: 010110222587 Date Filed: 02/18/1992 Page: 7