Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05226/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05226-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Jack Cowley
Appellee
George Lewis Sloan
Appellant

Document Text:

# 

• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

GEORGE LEWIS SLOAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

United St.ate:; Co· trt ol Appeals 

.,,,.,~+l- ~i"'uit 

MAR 2 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

JACK COWLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL) 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

No. 90-5226 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D. C. No. 90-C-0597-E) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACBA, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

On February 15, 1989, Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter 

Petitioner), George Lewis Sloan, was convicted in the Northern 

District of Oklahoma, Case No. 88-CR-90-005-B, and sentenced to 

* 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: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 1 
five years imprisonment. On March 1, 1989, he was convicted in 

Oklahoma state court of unlawful possession of narcotics with 

intent to distribute, Case No. CRF-87-14. He was sentenced to 

fifteen years imprisonment. The state court conviction is on 

appeal at this time. 

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Oklahoma, alleging the federal court lost jurisdiction of him 

because he was released into state custody for trial and then 

allowed to serve his state sentence before returning to federal 

custody. After reviewing the record, the district court concluded 

Petitioner lacked standing ~o challenge custody arrangements with 

federal and state authorities, and further, that Petitioner failed 

to state a habeas corpus claim. Petitioner now appeals to this 

court, presenting the same grounds for relief he argued to the 

district court. We affirm. 

Petitioner contends that because he was transferred by writ 

of habeas corpus ad prosequendum from federal custody to state 

custody, his transfer was pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on 

Detainers Act (the "IADA"), 18 U.S.C. App. 2 S 2, Art. I-IX 

(1988). In his brief, Petitioner states that "[s]ince Petitioner 

had already started his federal time, due process under IAD[A] was 

violated in several ways, but under any standards Petitioner 

should have been returned to federal custody immediately after 

receiving his sentence in state court." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 2 
r 

In relation to the conclusions of law of the lower court, 

this court may exercise its independent judgment when there is no 

dispute regarding evidence. Murphy v. Turner, 426 F.2d 422, 423 

(10th Cir. 1970). In order to attack a federal sentence pursuant 

to a writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner must show: "that 

the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws 

of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction 

to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the 

maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack." 28 u.s.c. § 2255 (1988). 

To find a violation of the IADA, a detainer ·must be lodged 

with the sending state. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 361 

(1978), Greathouse v. United States, 655 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (10th 

Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 926 (1982). A writ of habeas 

corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer for purposes of the IADA. 

Mauro, 436 U.S. at 361. Additionally, a writ of habeas corpus ad 

prosequendum may not be considered a "written request for 

temporary custody" within the meaning of Art. IV of the !ADA. Id. 

Since no detainer was issued in the present case causing the IADA 

to be invoked, Petitioner has no procedural due process rights 

pursuant to the IADA. 

Petitioner further contends that "[i]n violation of federal 

and state law, the federal and state authorities have forced him 

to start and serve a little on his federal sentence only to stop 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 3 
and then start serving his state sentence, leaving the remainder 

of his federal sentence to be finished after the state releases 

him." Petitioner contends this creates a liberty interest for 

him. 

As to this issue, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court for essentially the same reasons set forth in the Report and 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate, namely, that 

Petitioner lacks standing to challenge custody arrangements 

between federal and state authorities. Stripling v. United 

States, 172 F.2d 636, 637 (10th Cir. 1949). Therefore, there is 

no liberty interest. A copy of the United States Magistrate's 

report is attached. 

Based on the foregoing, we reject the contentions that 

Petitioner's due process rights were violated and that a liberty 

interest was created. Petitioner fails to state a habeas corpus 

claim. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 4 
-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

GEORGE LEWIS SLOAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY and THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

I 90-C-597-E ✓ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE 

Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is 

now before the Magistrate for initial consideration. Petitioner was convicted in the 

Northern District of Oklahoma, Case Number 88-CR-90-005-B and sentenced to 5 years 

imprisonment on February 15, 1989. He was convicted in state court, Case Number CRF87-14, of unlawful possession of narcotics with the intent to distribute and sentenced to 

15 years imprisonment on March 1, 1989. Neither conviction was appealed. 

Petitioner now attacks the federal court judgment and seeks federal habeas relief on 

the alleged ground that the federal court has lost jurisdiction of him, because he was 

released into state custody for trial and then allowed to serve his state sentence before 

returning to federal custody. 

Because the petition is by a pro se litigant, its sufficiency must be judged by 

standards less stringent than those established for pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). The petitioner is in custody pursuant to a judgment 

of a state court, as required to seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but he is 

\ 

Appellate Case: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 5 
... 

' 

I 

challenging a federal conviction~ which would constitute a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. The court finds that petitioner's petition should be interpreted as seeking a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. . 

There is no authority which supports petitioner's claim that the federal court 

permanently lost jurisdiction of him when he was transferred to state custody for trial and 

service of the ensuing sentence. The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C. 

Appx. Art. I-IX, provides for the transfer of a federal prisoner to state authority in such a 

situation. Courts have found that when a federal prisoner is transferred to state authorities 

for sentencing and service of that sentence, his federal sentence begins to run from the date 

he is delivered back into federal custody to serve that sentence. Anderson v. U.S., 405 F.2d 

492, 493 (10th Cir. 1969). In such a situation, there is a transfer of jurisdiction, which 

is transferred back once the state sentence is served. 

The petitioner has no standing to challenge custody arrangements with federal and 

state authorities. Stripling v. United States, 172 F.2d 636, 637 (10th Cir. 1949). The 

question of jurisdiction and custody over prisoners is one of comity between governments 

and not a personal right of prisoners. Jones v. Taylor, 327 F.2d 493 (10th Cir. 1964), cert. 

den. 377 U.S. 1002. When a person violates the criminal statutes of both the federal and 

state governments, he may not complain of the order in which he is tried or punished for 

such offenses. Lionel v. Day, 430 F.Supp. 384, 386 (W.D.Okla. 1976). 

Petitioner does not allege that his federal conviction was imposed in violation of the 

Constitution or laws of the United States or that the federal court did not have jurisdiction 

when he was sentenced or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 6 
• "· 

law or that the sentence can be collaterally attacked, so he has not alleged any of the 

grounds provided by § 2255 to attack a federal sentence. His petition should therefore be 

dismissed for failure to state a habeas corpus claim. 

Dated this 3" L .s{.y of ~ , 1990. 

~---

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5226 Document: 010110031446 Date Filed: 03/28/1991 Page: 7