Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02706/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02706-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Daniel Coccimiglio
Petitioner
Charles DeRosa
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nathan Daniel Coccimiglio, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles DeRosa, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-2706-PHX-MHM (VAM)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

claiming a denial of his due process rights based upon the alleged mis-calculation by the

Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") of credit for time served on Petitioner's federal sentence. (Dkt.#

1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis who has issued a Report

and Recommendation that recommends that the Petition be denied. (Dkt.#7). Petitioner has

not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)("[a] judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made"). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's

Case 2:04-cv-02706-MHM Document 11 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner was mistakenly taken to the federal facility.

- 2 -

recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact." Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the pleadings and documents of record in this case. On

December 12, 2001, Petitioner was transferred to federal custody from state custody pursuant

to a writ. (Petitioner Memorandum of Law, Dkt.#3 at Exhibit 1). On August 16, 2002

Petitioner was sentenced by the United States District Court in Utah to a term of 46 months

as a result of his conviction for possession of a firearm by a person using or addicted to a

controlled substance, unlawful possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun and

possession of stolen firearms. (Id). On August 20, 2002, Petitioner was returned to state

custody in Utah and was sentenced on September 4, 2002, with his sentences for his state

convictions to run concurrent and "any other federal charges." (Petitioner Memorandum of

Law, Dkt.#3 at Exhibit 2). On September 15, 2002, Petitioner was "mistakenly" taken to a

federal correctional facility to begin his federal sentence. (Respondent's Response, Dkt.#8

at pp. 2-3).1

 Upon recognizing the error, Petitioner was returned to state custody on January

16, 2003 to complete his state sentence. (Petitioner Memorandum of Law, Dkt.#3 at Exhibit

4). On August 5, 2003 Petitioner was paroled from state custody and picked up by federal

authorities on a federal detainer. (Id). The Inmate History indicates that Petitioner came into

federal custody on October 7, 2003. (Respondent's Response, Dkt.#8 at Exhibit B, p.1). 

Petitioner claims that he is entitled to credit served on his federal sentence from

September 4, 2002 (state sentencing date) to October 7, 2003 (date committed to BOP). 

The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Petitioner's claim based upon a denial of

his due process rights be denied as the BOP's calculation of time served is accurate.

Specifically, the fact that Petitioner spent some time in federal custody prior to

commencement of his federal sentence does not alter the fact that the state of Utah had

Case 2:04-cv-02706-MHM Document 11 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

priority over Petitioner for purposes of his sentence. See Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361,

1366-67 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that federal sentence does not commence during time

prisoner is a state prisoner but temporarily present in federal court; rather, in such

circumstance the prisoner it considered to be "on loan" to the federal authorities). Thus,

Petitioner's federal sentence did not begin until he was received into federal custody after

being paroled on his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). As neither party has filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, it is adopted by the Court.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation in its entirety as the Order of the Court. (Dkt.#10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

(Dkt.#1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly. 

 DATED this 7th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02706-MHM Document 11 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 3