Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01543/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tschaka Fortt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1543

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TSCHAKA FORTT,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 1-98-cr-00024-001)

District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 17, 2015

Before: RENDELL, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 25, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1543 Document: 003112000665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
2

Tschaka Fortt appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware, which denied his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For 

the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s decision.

Fortt was indicted on federal drug and firearm charges in 1998. At the time of the 

indictment, Fortt was in state custody awaiting disposition of state charges of attempted 

robbery, and drug and firearm charges. Fortt was transferred to federal authorities on a 

writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. After pleading guilty to federal charges, he was 

sentenced by Judge Joseph J. Longobardi to a total of 101 months of imprisonment. Fortt 

was then returned to state custody, where he was sentenced to a state term of 2 years and 

6 months imprisonment for a state probation violation, and an additional 20 years’ 

imprisonment for the state robbery, drug, and firearm charges.

In 2013, Fortt wrote to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), asking it to 

retroactively designate the state prison where he was housed as the place of service of his 

federal sentence, pursuant to Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1990). The 

BOP wrote a letter to the District Court (Judge Sue L. Robinson, as Judge Longobardi 

had retired), asking if it had a recommendation on the request. The BOP did not receive 

a response. It denied Fortt’s request by letter dated November 1, 2013. The BOP stated 

that after considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), it had determined that 

retroactive concurrent designation was not appropriate.

Fortt then filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District Court. The 

District Court granted the Government’s motion for a stay so that it could gather 

Case: 15-1543 Document: 003112000665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
3

additional information about Fortt’s history and characteristics. The Government filed a 

supplemental response, noting that the Court could make a non-binding recommendation 

in favor of Fortt’s request, but that it did not recommend it. The Government argued that 

the BOP had not abused its discretion in denying Fortt’s request.

The District Court denied Fortt’s § 2241 petition, agreeing with the Government 

that the BOP had not abused its discretion, and that it had appropriately considered the 

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621. Fortt filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 

District Court denied. Fortt timely appealed.1 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621, the BOP had the authority to nunc pro tunc designate the 

place of confinement for Fortt’s federal sentence, essentially allowing the state and 

federal sentences to run concurrently. Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1467-68 

(2012); Barden, 921 F.2d at 483. But we agree with the District Court that the BOP did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Fortt’s request for a nunc pro tunc designation. 

We have previously held that while prisoners are entitled to have their requests for 

nunc pro tunc designation examined by the BOP using the factors listed in § 3621(b), the 

BOP has “wide discretion” in determining whether to grant the request. Id. at 482-83. 

Fortt argues that the BOP should not have considered the factors listed in § 3621(b); 

instead he argues, citing Barden, that the BOP was required to grant his request if the 

 

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and “exercise plenary 

review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard 

to its findings of fact.” O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (per 

curiam). A district court’s review of the BOP’s denial of a nunc pro tunc designation is 

Case: 15-1543 Document: 003112000665 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
4

requested facility meets the BOP’s minimum standards of health and habitability. Fortt 

misreads Barden. Meeting the minimum standards of health and habitability is necessary, 

but not sufficient; we have recognized that § 3621(b) “set[s] forth the appropriate factors 

that the [BOP] should consider” when making a designation of the place of confinement. 

Barden, 921 F.2d at 482. 

The record reflects that the BOP did review Fortt’s request under the five factors 

stated in § 3621(b), and denied his request based on his history and characteristics, and 

the lack of a recommendation from the federal sentencing court. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) 

(“Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the 

court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.”). Accordingly, the BOP did not 

abuse its discretion under § 3621(b) by denying Fortt’s nunc pro tunc request.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

 

for abuse of discretion. See Barden, 921 F.2d at 483.

Case: 15-1543 Document: 003112000665 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/25/2015