Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00444-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Michael Lee Tolle
Petitioner

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

1 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the federal habeas corpus statute that permits a prisoner to challenge

his imprisonment on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States. See generally Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Lee Tolle, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Craig Apker,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-444-TUC-CKJ-DTF

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241.1

 Petitioner, Michael Lee Tolle, while confined in

the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, AZ, alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed

to credit his federal sentence with 434 days of time served. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice of

this Court, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ferraro for a Report and

Recommendation. Before the Court are the Petition (Doc. 1), Respondent’s Answer (Doc. 10),

a Reply (Doc. 15), and a Court-ordered supplemental brief by Respondent (Doc. 20).

Background

Tolle was arrested on August 24, 2006, for a state parole violation and sentenced to 120

days, which expired on December 21, 2006. (Doc. 10, Exs. 1, 2.) On January 5, 2007, Tolle was

sentenced to 13-months incarceration for the unauthorized use of a vehicle under Oregon law

Case 4:10-cv-00444-CKJ Document 21 Filed 06/07/11 Page 1 of 4
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

2 Respondents’ original brief contained erroneous information regarding Tolle’s state

sentences; therefore, the Court ordered Respondent to file a supplemental brief clearly delineating the

start and termination date of each state incarceration and to attach supporting documentation. (Doc. 16.)

Respondent’s supplement provides some additional information, however, he re-submitted the exact

same documents that were attached to his response and his brief again contains several errors. For

example, he states that: Tolle’s sentence in case number 06-1443 was 19 months, but it was 13 months;

Tolle was sentenced in case number 060331718 on February 13, 2007, but he was sentenced on January

5, 2007; and the sentence in case number 06-1443 was not complete until August 21, 2008, when his

own documents, the Court’s order and common sense indicate it was complete months earlier. Despite

the Court’s explicit direction, Respondent’s briefing was unhelpful; therefore, the Court worked

through the available documents without Respondent’s assistance.

- 2 -

(case no. 060331718). (Doc. 10, Ex. 3.) Tolle was sentenced in state court to a second,

consecutive, 13-month incarceration on January 12, 2007, for possession of methamphetamine

and identify theft (case no. 06-1443). (Doc. 10, Ex. 2; Doc. 15 at 8-11.) On June 30, 2008, Tolle

was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to 120 months

imprisonment for felon in possession of a firearm. (Doc. 10, Ex. 5 at 1-2.) The sentence was

ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence in Tolle’s state case no. 060331718. (Id. at

2.) BOP is using August 21, 2008 as the date on which Tolle began serving his federal sentence,

and calculates his release date as May 7, 2017, with good time credits. (Doc. 10, Ex. 6.)

Analysis2

Tolle argues that in calculating his sentence BOP failed to credit him for the presentence

time period of June 15, 2007 to June 30, 2008, and for the period July 1, 2008 to August 23,

2008.

First, Tolle argues that, on June 15, 2007, he was in BOP’s custody as a pre-sentence

admit, which indicates he should begin to receive credit towards his federal sentence as of that

date. In support of this argument, Tolle attaches a page of BOP records listing his June 15, 2007

presentence admission to federal custody. Tolle argues that at this point he was no longer on a

temporary writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum from his state sentence, rather, he was

officially in federal custody. This argument is refuted by the declaration of Alan Ray, a BOP

Management Analyst at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center, and the documents

attached thereto. (Doc. 10, Ray Decl., Ex. 4.) Those documents reveal that from May 30, 2007

Case 4:10-cv-00444-CKJ Document 21 Filed 06/07/11 Page 2 of 4
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 The Court ordered Respondent to address the federal judge’s silence on case number 06-

1443 in the supplemental brief, which, again he failed to do.

- 3 -

to July 1, 2008, Tolle was temporarily in federal custody on a writ of habeas corpus ad

prosequendum. (Id.) From July 1 to August 21, 2008, Tolle returned to state custody to

complete the time remaining on his second 13-month sentence (case no. 06-1443). (Id.) Prior

to imposition of his June 2008 federal sentence, Tolle was in presentence status with respect to

his federal case; however, he is not entitled to BOP credit during that period because the time

was credited to his state sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (crediting presentence time only

if it is not credited against another sentence).

Tolle also argues that, because the federal judge was silent regarding the relationship

between his federal sentence and his state sentence in case number 06-1443, the two sentences

should be interpreted as concurrent.3

 Under this theory, he would be entitled to credit towards

his federal sentence as soon as the 060331718 sentence terminated. The federal judge mentioned

only Tolle’s sentence in case number 060331718, ordering that it be consecutive to his federal

sentence. However, at the time the federal judge sentenced Tolle, the sentence in that case

(060331718) already was discharged, and the only remaining state sentence was in case number

06-1443. It appears likely that the federal judge merely misidentified the state sentence that

remained undischarged. More importantly, the law does not support Tolle’s argument. When

a federal sentencing judge is silent regarding a previously imposed but undischarged term of

imprisonment, the sentences are presumed to run consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United

States v. Wills, 881 F.2d 823, 826 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, Tolle’s federal sentence did

not begin until he completed his two consecutive state sentences.

Tolle calculates his state sentences differently than is revealed in the BOP

documentation. For example, he counts the time from August 24, 2006 to January 5, 2007,

towards his sentence in case number 060331718, and concludes that this sentence was complete

around June 15, 2007. (Doc. 15 at 3.) This is inaccurate because, as Tolle acknowledges, from

August 24 to December 21, 2006, he was serving his 120-day sentence for violating parole.

Case 4:10-cv-00444-CKJ Document 21 Filed 06/07/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

(Doc. 10, Exs. 1, 2; Doc. 15 at 2.) He then began serving his 13-month sentence in case number

060331718, which appears to have terminated on October 10, 2007. (Doc. 10, Ex. 2.) Although

Respondent did not provide any state documentation regarding this date, accounting for a good

time credit reduction, it is logical. Additionally, it comports with Tolle’s calculation when you

properly account for the time he spent serving his parole violation. (See Doc. 15 at 3.)

Therefore, the Court finds it reasonable to rely upon the BOP document stating that the sentence

in case number 060331718 was completed on October 10, 2007.

At that time, Tolle began serving his second state sentence of 13 months. According to

Tolle’s calculations (which appear accurate), with good time credit, his actual time of service

was 316 days. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Beginning to count on October 11, 2007, a term of 316 days

expired on August 21, 2008. BOP is using that as the date Tolle commenced serving his federal

sentence. (Doc. 10, Ex. 6 at 2.) In light of these calculations, Tolle has not demonstrated that

BOP has failed to credit any time served on his federal sentence.

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court DISMISS

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections

are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 10-444-TUC-CKJ.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00444-CKJ Document 21 Filed 06/07/11 Page 4 of 4