-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-20673

v.

Hon. George Caram Steeh

TODD SELMA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF

PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b)(6) (ECF NO. 76)

Proceeding pro se, Defendant Todd Selma challenges the calculation 

of his sentence and seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Specifically, he alleges that the Bureau of Prisons 

has not given him credit for time served in federal custody. 

Selma is serving a 71-month sentence for possessing a firearm as a 

convicted felon. At the time the judgment was entered on October 1, 2015, 

Selma was serving an undischarged state sentence. The judgment 

provides that Selma’s “sentence shall be imposed partially concurrent with 

his undischarged term of imprisonment with the Michigan Department of 

Corrections . . . . This sentence shall begin on September 15, 2017, or on 

the date the defendant is paroled from the Michigan Department of 

Case 2:14-cr-20673-GCS-RSW ECF No. 79, PageID.630 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 4
-2-

Corrections; whichever date comes first.” ECF No. 67. Selma did not 

appeal his sentence. See ECF No. 68, 73.

Selma was discharged from his state sentence on June 10, 2018, 

and was transferred to a federal facility. His current anticipated release 

date is January 11, 2022. Selma contends that time he spent in federal 

custody in connection with his appearances before this court should count 

toward discharging his federal sentence. Selma was in the custody of the 

U.S. Marshal from November 11 to November 18, 2014, and March 15, 

2015, to June 27, 2016. The government states that this time was credited 

toward his state sentence and that Selma may not receive “double credit.” 

See Broadwater v. Sanders, 59 Fed. Appx. 112, 113 (6th Cir. 2003)

(“Because Broadwater received credit toward his state sentence for the 

time period in question, he may not receive credit for this time toward his 

current federal sentence.”).

To the extent Selma is disputing the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of 

his credit for time served, his challenge is properly brought pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, rather than Rule 60(b). See United States v. Singh, 52 Fed. 

Appx, 711, 712 (6th Cir. 2002) (construing motion challenging calculation of 

sentencing credit as “a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus because he requests relief from the execution of a federal 

Case 2:14-cr-20673-GCS-RSW ECF No. 79, PageID.631 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 4
-3-

sentence”). The BOP, not the court, has the authority to determine if a 

defendant is eligible for credit for time served in detention prior to 

sentencing. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992); United 

States v. Westmoreland, 974 F.2d 736, 737 (6th Cir. 1992) (“[A] district 

court does not have jurisdiction to apply credit against a sentence under 

section 3585(b).”). The court may review the BOP’s determination, but only 

after the defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies. Wilson, 503 

U.S. at 335; Westmoreland, 974 F.2d at 737.

Because Selma has not alleged that he has exhausted his 

administrative remedies through the BOP, the court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider his challenge to the sentencing credit he has received. Singh, 52 

Fed. Appx. at 712 (“Complete exhaustion of administrative remedies is a 

prerequisite to seeking review of the BOP’s calculation of sentencing 

credit.”); United States v. Chase, 104 Fed. Appx. 561, 562 (6th Cir. 2004).

In addition, to the extent that Selma relies upon Rule 60(b)(6) 

because he seeks to amend the judgment to reduce his sentence, the court 

lacks authority to grant such relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (as a general 

rule, a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has 

been imposed”). 

Case 2:14-cr-20673-GCS-RSW ECF No. 79, PageID.632 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 4
-4-

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Selma’s motion (ECF No. 

76) is DENIED.

Dated: November 17, 2020

s/George Caram Steeh

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

November 17, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and 

also on Todd Selma #50582-039, FTC Oklahoma City, Federal 

Transfer Center, P.O. Box 898801, Oklahoma City, OK 73189.

s/Brianna Sauve

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:14-cr-20673-GCS-RSW ECF No. 79, PageID.633 Filed 11/17/20 Page 4 of 4