2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-18-2005 

# B ai ley v . Na sh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-4881

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B ai ley v . Nash" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1167. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1167NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________________ N o. 03- 4881

________________ NOE L L E BA I L E Y,

A ppel l ant v. J O H N N A SH , W ar den

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 00226) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay18, 2005)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM N o e lle B a ileya p p e a ls a n o rd e r o f th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as c o rp u s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.2 I. O n A ugus t23, 1997, N oel l e B ai l eyw as t aken i nt o s t at e cus t odyaft erbei ng a rre ste d f

o r p o ss e ss in g a f

ire a rm a n d f

o r v io latin g h is N e w Je rse ysta te p a ro le. T h e sta te di s m i s s ed the fi r earm s char ge i n favorof fe der al pr os ecut i on. N evert hel es s , B ai l ey rem aine d in state cu stod yan d o n M ay2 0 , 1 9 9 8 , the N ew Jerse yS tat e P aro le B o ard r evoked hi s par ol e and ga ve hi m cr edi tt ow ar ds hi s par ol e vi ol at ort erm forthe a p p ro x im a te ly n in e m o n th s h e h a d s p e n t in c u s to d ys in c e th e d a te o f h is a rr e s t. M eanw hi l e, B ai l eyw as t r ans ferr ed on var i ous occa s i ons t o t empora r yfede r al cus t ody pu rs uan tt o w ri t s of ha beas co rpus ad pr os equendum : o n M a y5 , 1 9 9 8 , h e p led g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n a n d o n A u g u st 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 , h e w a s s e n ten c e d to a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof “90 months , w i t h cr edi tfort i m e s erved. ” B ai l eycompl et ed hi s s t at e par ol e vi ol at ort erm on O ct ober2, 1998, and w as i m m edi at el yt aken i nt o fede r al cus t ody . T he B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) comput ed B ai l ey ’ s fi r earm s s ent ence t o run cons ecut i vel yt o t he N ew J er s eypar ol e vi ol at ort erm and di d notcr edi thi s fede r al s e n t e n c e f

o ra n y t i m e h e s p e n ti n s t a t e c u s t o d y. A ft erpr oper l yexhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es , B ai l eyfi l ed the pr es ent p e tit io n f o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. H e ar gued thathi s fede r al s ent ence s houl d be cr edi t ed fort he a p p ro x im a telytw e lv e m o n th s h e se rv e d f ro m th e d a te h e w a s a rre ste d a n d tak e n in to c u s t o d y( Au g u s t2 3 , 1 9 9 7 ) t h r o u g h t h e d a t e h e wa s s e n t e n c e d o n th e f e d e r a l f i r e a r ms c o n v i c t i o n ( Au g u s t2 1 , 1 9 9 8 ) . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r td e n i e d r e l i e f , h o l d i n g th a tth e BO PW e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 (a). W e e x erc ise p lena ry 1 rev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s l eg al co n clus ion s an d ap p lya c learlyerro n eo u s stan d ard to it s fin d ing s o f f

ac t. S ee R u g g iano v . R eish , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 3 p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t B a iley ’s f e d e ra l se n ten c e sh o u ld b e se rv e d c o n se c u tiv e lyto h is par ol e vi ol at ort erm and thatfede r al cr edi tforthe t i m e he w as i n s t at e cus t odyw as appr opr i at el ydeni ed under18 U . S. C . § 3585( b) . B ai l eyappea l ed. 1 II. B ai l eyar gues t hatt he s ent enci ng court ’ s r efe r ence i n i t s j udgm entt o “cr edi tfor t i m e s erved” r efl ect ed i t s i nt entt o adj us thi s fede r al s ent ence underU . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 3( c) fort he t i m e he w as i ncar cer at ed bef or e i m pos i t i on of hi s fede r al s ent ence . T he governm entcont ends , how ever , t hatthe s ent enci ng courtdi d notgr anta § 5G 1. 3( c) adjustm ent and t hat the p eri od B ai l eyspent i n st at e cust od ycou l d n ot be cr edit ed ag ai nst h is fed era l fi rea rm s term u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 5 (b). I n R uggi ano v. R ei s h, 307 F. 3d 121 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , w e expl ai ned thatthe s ent enci ng court ’ s author i t yunder§ 5G 1. 3( c) t o “adj us t ” a s ent ence i s di s t i nctfr om t he B O P’ s author i t yunder18 U . S. C . § 3585( b) t o “cr edi t ” a s ent ence , even though the benef i tt o t he def

endantm aybe the s ame. See i d. at131- 33. I n par t i cul ar , the “adjustm ent” that the sentenci ng cou rtexclusi velycan aw ard und er § 5G 1. 3(c) i s a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n d e s ig n e d to a c c o u n t f o r t im e s p e n t in c u s to d yo n a p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . O n the otherhand, t he cr edi tt hatB O P excl us i vel yaw ar ds under§ 3585( b) acc ount s for t i m e ser ved i n d et enti on pri or t o the dat e t he fe deral sent ence c om m ences. Id. ; see al so U ni t ed St at es v. D or s ey , 166 F. 3d 558, 564- 65 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( St apl et on, J . , concurr i ng)B ai l ey ’s at t orneysugg est ed thatthis “app ropri at e t i m e” be the peri od from his arr est 2 (A u g u st 2 3 , 1 9 9 7 ) to e ith e r th e d a te h is p a ro le w a s re v o k e d (M a y2 0 , 1 9 9 8 ) o r “ u n til now , ” the dat e of hi s fede r al s ent enci ng ( A ugus t21, 1998) . See Sent enci ng T r ans cr i pt , 4- 5 . 4 (no ti n g that m u ch o f th e c o n fu sion co u ld b e e x p lai n ed b ythe d iffe ren t use s o f th e term

“ c re d it” ). T o d eterm ine w h at typ e o f c red itthe s en tenc ing co u rtinten d ed to ap p lyin B ail ey ’s c a se , “th e a p p ro p ria te s tar tin g p o in t is to a sc e rta in th e m e a n in g th a t w e sh o u ld a sc rib e to th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt ’s d ir e c tiv e s .” R io s v . W ile y , 2 0 1 F .3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W hen the or al pr onouncementof s ent ence and w r i tt en s ent ence ar e i n confl i ct , the or al s e n te n c e p re v a ils . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C h a s m e r, 9 5 2 F .2 d 5 0 , 5 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). H ow ever , w hen ther e i s no confl i ct , “butr atheronl yambi gui t yi n ei t herorboth [s ent ence p ro n o u n c e m e n ts], w e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t th e c o n tro lli n g o ra l se n ten c e ‘o f ten [ c o n sis ts o f] sp o n tane o u s rem ark s’ th at are ‘a d d resse d p ri m aril yto the ca se a t han d an d are unl i kel yt o be a pe r fec torcompl et e s t at ementof the s urr oundi ng l aw . ’ ” R uggi ano, 307 F . 3 d at 13 3 (qu o ti n g R ios, 20 1 F . 3 d at 26 8 (cit ati o n o m itted)). I m p o rt an tl y , “[ i] n in terp re tin g th e o ra l sta tem e n t, w e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t th e c o n tex t in w h ich th is s ta te m e n t is m a d e is e s s e n tia l.” Id . a t 1 3 4 . A ts ent enci ng, B ai l ey ’ s at t or neys t at ed that“the i s s ue of c r edi t , t i m e cr edi tt o be gi ven i s pr i m ar i l yan i s s ue thatt he B O P w oul d us e. H ow ever , I j us tw antt o pl ace on t he r ecor d [foranyr evi ew t he B O P m i ghtunder t ake] and as k y ou atthe conc l us i on of the p ro c e e d in g s s im p ly to in c lu d e in th e o rd e r t h a t c re d it b e g iv e n f o r a ll a p p ro p ri a te tim e .” 25

Sent enci ng T r ans cr i pt( “Tr. ”) , 4. N ext , the Pr obat i on O ffi cernot ed that“anyt i m e a defe ndanthas s erved i n cus t odyt hathas notbeen c r edi t ed t o anothers ent ence w i l l get c re d ite d to w a rd s h is f

e d e ra l s e n te n c e a n d th e [ B O P ] m a k e s th a t d e te rm in a tio n .” Id . a t 5 . T he pr os ecut ori ndi cat ed thatt he “de fenda nts houl d r ece i ve j ai l t i m e cr edi t[fr om the B O P] fort i m e s erved s i nce M ay20, 1998 onl y . T hi s r eas on thati s s o i s beca us e the per i od of t i m e he s erved i n cus t odyfr om A ugus t23, 1997 t hr ough M ay20, 1998 w as cr edi t ed t o hi s par ol e vi ol at i on s ent ence , w as cr edi t ed t o t he s ent ence thathe has s erved b a s e d u p o n h is s e p a ra te v io la tio n o f th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f h is p a ro le .” Id . a t 9 -1 0 . A tt he conc l us i on of the pr ocee di ngs , the s ent enci ng courts t at ed B ai l ey“i s her eby c o m m itt e d to th e c u sto d yo f th e [ B O P ] to b e im p riso n e d f o r a ter m o f

9 0 m o n th s w ith cr edi bl e t i m e s erved. ” I d. at33- 34. B ai l ey ’ s at t orneythen as ked “t o be i ncl uded i n t he or derthat[the B O P] appl yal l appr opr i at e cr edi tfort i m e s erved. ” I d. at36. T he s ent enci ng courtr es ponded, “I don’ tneed t o add anyt hi ng addi t i onal t o t he j udgm entfor th a t to b e u n d e rsto o d .” Id . A s n o ted a b o v e , the w ritten ju d g m e n t sta tes th a t B a ileyis “ to be i m pr i s oned fora t erm of 90 m onths , w i t h cr edi tfort i m e s erved. ” In lig h t o f

th e se f a c ts, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt’s r e f e re n c e to “ c re d it f o r tim e se rv e d ” w a s a n o n -b in d in g re c o m m e n d a tio n f o r th e B O P to a w a rd c re d it –if appr opr i at e – under§ 3585( b) , r atherthan a mandat orydi r ect i on thatB ai l ey ’ s s ent ence be a d ju ste d p u rsu a n t to § 5 G 1 .3 (c ). W e re c o g n ize th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt c a n a p p ly § 5G 1. 3( c) w her e, as her e, no expl i ci tr efe r ence i s m ade t o t hats ect i on. See R i os , 201 F. 3d at268. I m por t ant l y , how ever , i n cas es w her e w e have found thatthe s ent enci ng6

cour ti nt ended t o i m pos e an a dj us t ed s ent ence , the s ent enci ng courthad cl ear l yi ndi cat ed i t s i nt entt o have the fe der al and s t at e s ent ence s run concurr ent l yi n or dert o achi eve a re a s o n a b le p e n a lty. S e e R io s , 2 0 1 F .3 d a t 2 6 7 -6 9 ; R u g g ia n o , 3 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 , 1 3 2 -3 3 . H er e, bycontr as t , no i nform at i on befor e the s ent enci ng courts ugges t s thati tw as appl y i ng § 5G 1. 3( c) . N o m ent i on w as m ade of concurr ents ent ence s orthe rea so n ab lene ss o f ru n n ing B ail ey ’s sen tenc es c o n cu rren tl y . M o st i m p o rt an tl y , h o w ev er, the s ent enci ng cour tand both part i es pr ocee ded as though anycr edi tdue B ai l eyw oul d be cal cul at ed byt he B O P, w hi ch of c our s e does nothave a uthor i t yt o i m pos e an a dj us t ed s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to § 5 G 1 .3 (c ). B e c a u se th e “ se n ten c in g c o u rt [ d id ] n o t ap p l[ y ] se c tio n 5 G 1 .3 (c ) . . . in p ro n o u n c in g [ B a iley ’s] se n ten c e [ ,] . . . the iss u e p re se n ted o n a p p e a l [ is] in f a c t a cr edi t i ng m att ergoverned bys ect i on 3585( b) . ” R i os , 201 F. 3d at276. W e conc l ude that the B O P pr oper l ydet erm i ned thatB ai l eyw as notent i t l ed t o fede r al - s ent ence cr edi tfor the per i od he w as i n s t at e cus t ody . A fede r al pr i s oneri s s t atut or i l yent i t l ed t o cr edi tfor t i m e s penti n offi ci al det ent i on pr i ort o t he dat e hi s fede r al s ent ence comm ence s i f the det ent i on r es ul t ed fr om t he s ame offens e forw hi ch the s ent ence w as i m pos ed and i f that t i m e has notbeen c r edi t ed aga i ns tanothers ent ence . See § 3585( b) . B ai l ey ’ s fede r al s ent ence comm ence d on O ct ober2, 1998, w hen he w as r el eas ed bythe s t at e and t aken into f ed era l cus tod y . S ee § 3 5 8 5 (a); W il so n , 5 0 3 U . S . at 33 3 -34 . B ec au se th e e n ti re p e rio d b e tw e e n B a iley ’s a rre st a n d th e d a te h is f e d e ra l se n ten c e c o m m e n c e d w a s s p e n t in s ervi ce of

hi s s t at e par ol e vi ol at ort erm , the B O P coul d notcr edi tB ai l ey ’ s fede r alT he pr os ecut or ’ s s ugges t i on ats ent enci ng thatB ai l eyw oul d be ent i t l ed t o cr edi tfor 3 th e p e ri o d h e s e rv e d in s ta te c u s to d ys in c e th e d a te h is s ta te p a ro le w a s re v o k e d , s e e T r., 9 -1 0 , w a s m ista k e n . C f. D o rse y , 1 6 6 F .3 d a t 5 6 3 (re jec tin g th e o ryu n d e r w h ich “ c re d it f o r tim e se rv e d b e f

o re im p o sitio n o f

th e f e d e ra l se n ten c e w ill d e p e n d o n w h e n th e sta te s ent ence w as i m pos ed” be caus e “[ a] ctual t i m e of i m pr i s onm ents houl d notturn on the h ap p en stan ce o f th e sc h ed u li n g o f se n tenc ing d ates” ). T o th e e x ten t B a ileyse e k s c re d it fo r th e p e rio d h e sp e n t in f e d e ra l cu sto d yp u rsu a n t to 4 w ri t s of ha beas co rpus ad pr os equendum , hi s cl ai m i s w i t houtm er i t . See R uggi ano, 307 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 n .1 (“ tim e sp e n t in f e d e ra l cu sto d yp u rsu a n t to a w rit a d p r o s e q u e n d u m is cre d it ed tow ard h is st ate se n tenc e, no t his fed era l sen tenc e.”). 7 s ent ence w i t h anyof thatt i m e. See D or s ey , 166 F. 3d at560 ( r ecogni zi ng thatper i od 3 betw een s t at e s ent enci ng and fe der al s ent enci ng coul d notbe cr edi t ed t o fede r al s ent ence

“ b e c a u se it rep re se n ted tim e th a t th e a p p e llan t w a s a lre a d yse rv in g o n h is s tate se n ten c e .”); s e e a lso R io s, 2 0 1 F .3 d a t 2 7 2 (h o ld in g th a t 2 2 m o n th s s p e n t se rv in g sta te s ent ence ( i n fede r al det ent i on) pr i ort o i m pos i t i on of fe der al s ent ence coul d notbe cr edi t ed under§ 3585( b) ) . M or eover , the s ent enci ng courtdi d nots peci fythatthe fe der al an d stat e se n tenc es w ere to ru n co n cu rren tl y . S ee § 3 5 8 4 (a) (pro v iding that w h ere a term of i m pr i s onm enti s i m pos ed on a de fenda ntw ho i s al r eadys ubj ectt o an undi s char ged t erm of im pri sonm ent, t he term s run con secut i velyun l ess otherw i se ordered) ; see al so W eeke s v. Fl emi ng, 301 F. 3d 1175, 1179 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( “[t ] her e i s a pr es um pt i on t hat a fe der al s ent ence i m pos ed af t era pr i ors t at e s ent ence w i l l be s erved cons ecut i vel yt o t he s t at e s ent ence . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , B ai l eyhas s how n no err ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on. 4 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.