2003 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 9-11-2003 

# U SA v . D ' Ambr o si a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2944

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . D ' Ambr osi a" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 278. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/278NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No: 02-2944

______________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. DANIE L D' AMBROSI A, Appellant

App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Crimi nal Acti on No. 01-cr- 00197-3) District J udge: Honorable D ickinson R. Debevoise
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on June 3, 2003 Be for e: A LIT O, R OT H a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led Septe mber 11, 2003)

O P I N I O N ROTH , Circ uit J udge; Daniel D’Ambrosia has appealed t he June 27, 2002, judgment of se ntence i mposed

### 2

by the United States Dist rict Court for t

he District of

New Jersey. D’Ambrosia was indicted for racke teeri ng conspir acy. On April 5, 2001, he was granted bail pendi ng tri al on the condi tion t

hat he post

a $250,000 bond secured by pr opertyand that he be placed und er h ous e arr est. On Au gust 3 0, 200 1, pur suan t to a m otion f iled by the gov ernm ent, a b ail revocation heari ng was held. The Dist rict Court found that D’Ambrosia had vi olate d the conditi ons of his home confi nement, revoked his bai l, and committed hi m to the custody of the Att orney General for c onfinement. D’Ambrosia was the i ncarcer ated, pending trial, at the H udso n C oun ty Jail. On N ovember 13, 2001, D ’Ambrosia mov ed to have the conditions of house arrest reins tate d. On that

date, the Dist

rict Court permit

ted home confine ment under st rict cond itions, inc luding visua l and e lectron ic surv eillance . On No vem ber 3 0, D ’Am brosia pl ed gui lt

y to oneco unt

of ra ck et ee ri ng c ons pi ra cy , p ur su an t to 18 U. S. C. § 19 62( d) . H e admitt ed to advanci ng money to J oseph Servi dio with reasonablegrounds to be lievethat the m one y wo uld be u sed to m ake an e xto rtion ate e xten sion of c red it to T hom as C aru so. He also admitted to co nducting a n illegal sports book making operation. D ’Am brosia’s home detenti on was continued unt il s entenci ng. On June 26, 20 02, at se ntenc ing, D ’Am brosia mo ved f or cred it towa rds his sentencefor home confinement . The District Court denie d the moti on on the ground t hat it was out side i ts aut

hority t o extend such a

credit . D’Ambrosia was sentenced to a period

### 3

of im priso nm ent o f 30 mo nth s. W e ha ve ju risdi ction ove r this app eal p ursu ant to 28 U .S.C . § 12 91. The Distri ct Court di d not have j urisdi ction to hear D’Ambrosia’ s appli cati on for credit p ursua nt to 18 U.S .C. § 3 585 beca use D ’Am brosia had n ot exh austed his adm inistr ative rem edie s. See United Stat es v. Brann , 990 F .2d 98 (3d C ir. 1993 ); United Statesv. Checchini , 967 F.2d 348 ( 9th Cir. 1992) ; United St ates v. Gonzales , 65 F.3d 814 (10th Cir . 1995) ; United States v. Herrera , 931 F.2d 761 ( 11th Cir. 1991) ; United St ates v. McGee , 60 F .3d 1 266 (7th Cir . 199 5). The rep lacemen t of § 356 8 by § 3585 did not cha nge the A ttorney General’s deleg ation to the B ureau of P risons o f the a utho rity to determ ine cre dit for tim e serv ed in custody . Pursuant to t

his aut hority, the Bureau’ s regul ations set forth the procedures t hat the p rison er m ust p ursu e pr ior to see kin g re lief in the d istrict cou rt. United Stat es v. Lucas , 898 F.2d 1554 ( 11th Cir. 1990). I n United Stat es v. Wil son , 503 U .S. 329 (199 2), the Supreme Court

held that “§ 3585(b) does not aut horize a dist rict court to compute the credit at sentencing. ” Id. at 334 ; accord Brann , 990 F.2d at 103-104. Rather, t

he AttorneyGeneral, acti ng through t he Bureau of Pri sons, ha s the aut hority t o determi ne prio r cu stod y cred it in th e fir st ins tanc e. Wilson , 503 U .S. at 33 4-33 5; accord Brann , 990 F.2d at 104. Therefore, D’Ambrosia must exhaust his admini strative remedies with the Bu reau of P rison s be for e he ma y seek rev iew of s ente ncin g cr edit i n th e dis trict c our t. Brann , 990 F.2d at

103-104 (concluding that , because“[t]he issue of whether the re has

### 4

bee n pr ope r cre dit o f an y prior cus tod y to the term of [ def end ant’ s] se nten ce is not ripe [,] . . . [defendan t] must first exhau st his administrative rem edies”). For the foregoing rea sons, we wil l affi rm the judgment of sentenc e of the Dist rict Co urt.

### 5

TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing Opinion.
By the C ourt,

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit

Judge