1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BUCKLEY OTTO, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-04-1774

:

: (Judge McClure) 

WARDEN, FCI-ALLENWOOD, :

Respondent :

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

July 27, 2005

Background

Buckley Otto (“Petitioner”), an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood

Federal Correctional Institution, White Deer, Pennsylvania (“FCI-Allenwood”), filed

this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Service

of the petition was previously ordered. Named as Respondent is the Warden at FCIAllenwood.

Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery, armed bank robbery, kidnaping

during bank robbery, and conspiracy following a jury trial in the United States District

Court for the District of Connecticut. On June 30, 1983, Otto was sentenced to a

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 10
2

twenty (20) year term of incarceration. He was paroled from federal custody on

March 9, 1992. At the time of his release, Petitioner had 3,652 days remaining to be

served while under federal parole supervision.

On January 14, 1995, Otto was arrested by law enforcement officials in the

State of Connecticut and charged with criminal attempt to commit first degree assault,

second degree assault, assault on a police officer, interference with a police officer,

first degree reckless endangerment, criminal attempt to possess narcotics, and

criminal attempt to possess narcotics within 1,500 feet of a school. See Record

document no. 1, Exhibits 3- 4. Based on his arrest, the United States Parole

Commission (“Parole Commission”) issued a parole violator warrant on February 16,

1995. See id. at Exhibit 5. The warrant was lodged as a detainer with the State of

Connecticut on February 23, 1995. See id. 

Petitioner was sentenced to a twelve (12) year term of confinement as a result

of his Connecticut state conviction. He was granted parole with respect to his state

sentence on June 1, 2001 and was transferred into the custody of the Parole

Commission pursuant to the aforementioned parole violator warrant. Following a

parole revocation hearing, the Parole Commission issued a Notice of Action revoking

Otto’s parole, disallowing credit for the time he spent on parole, and ordering him to

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 10
1 The BOP’s interpretation of this statute appears in Program Statement

5880.28 which states that 54 days of GTC may be earned for each full year served on

a sentence in excess of 1 year with the GTC being prorated for the last partial year. 

3

serve the remainder of his sentence. His current scheduled release date is February

16, 2008.

Otto’s present petition claims entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief on

the grounds that his sentence has been improperly calculated. Petitioner indicates that

he is entitled to additional good time credit (“GTC”), specifically 54 days per year. 

His petition also maintains that a period of 82 months spent in state custody should be

credited towards service of his federal sentence because the imposition of a federal

detainer prevented him from making bail on his state charges.

Discussion

Good Time Credit

Based on a review of the petition and accompanying exhibits, it appears that

Petitioner is claiming that he has not been provided with the correct amount of GTC

which he is entitled to under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). § 3624(b) provides:1

a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year

other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner’s

life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence,

beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of

the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 10
4

year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons

that,

 during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional

disciplinary regulations.

Respondent counters that Petitioner is not entitled to relief with respect to

this claim because the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) correctly computed his

sentence. The Respondent notes that Otto is an “old law” inmate and as such the

computation of his statutory good time is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 4161 (repealed). 

Record document no. 6, p. 5. Under § 4161, Otto is entitled to ten (10) days of

statutory good time per month.

It is initially noted that it is the BOP, not courts, which determines whether

federal inmates should receive good time credits. United States v. Evans, 1 F.3d 654

(7th Cir. 1993). A federal sentence commences when the defendant is received by the

Attorney General of the United States for service of his federal sentence. Chambers

v. Holland, 920 F. Supp. 618, 621 (M.D. Pa.), aff’d, 100 F.3d 946 (3d Cir. 1996). 

Otto’s underlying federal sentence was imposed by the District of

Connecticut on June 30, 1983. Congress adopted § 3624 as part of the

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, “effective Nov. 1, 1987 and applicable

only to offenses committed after the taking effect of such repeal.” Otto’s federal

sentence was clearly imposed before the effective date of § 3624. Consequently,

despite the fact that it has been repealed, § 4161 is applicable in the present case. 

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 4 of 10
5

Under § 4161, a federal inmate serving a sentence of ten (10) years or more who

demonstrates good behavior was entitled to ten (10) days a month of good time

credit. See Fields v. Keohane, 954 F.2d 945, 947 (3d Cir. 1992). The amount of

GTC is credited monthly as it is earned. See id.

A sworn declaration submitted by FCI-Allenwood Assistant Inmate Systems

Manager Al J. Farley provides that Otto was released “with 3,652 days remaining to

be served under the conditions of parole.” Record document no. 6, Attachment A, ¶

8. On or about June 1, 2001, Petitioner reentered federal custody following

completion of his Connecticut state sentence. According to Farley’s undisputed

declaration, Petitioner’s parole violation term of 3,652 days was computed as

beginning on June 1, 2001. See id. at ¶ 15. Farley adds that pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §

523(b), Otto is being awarded statutory good time “at the rate of the original term of

imprisonment.” Id. at ¶ 16. Specifically, the ten (10) day per month rate mandated

under § 4161. Farley concludes by noting that Petitioner is eligible for a total of 1,200

days of statutory GTC. 

Pursuant to the above discussion, it is apparent that Petitioner’s assertion

that his GTC should be computed according to § 3624 is clearly misplaced. The

calculation of Otto’s GTC is clearly governed by § 4161. Likewise, there is no basis

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 5 of 10
6

for a finding that the BOP has miscalculated the Petitioner’s statutory good time with

respect to his ongoing federal incarceration.

Sentence Calculation

Petitioner’s additional argument maintains that because the federal detainer

prevented his release on bond, time spent in the custody of the State of Connecticut

should be credited towards service of his federal parole violator term. Respondent

asserts that this claim is meritless because the period of time Otto spent in state

custody was applied towards service of his state sentence and thus, cannot be applied

against his federal sentence.

According to the undisputed record, Otto was arrested in Connecticut on

January 19, 1995. On February 16, 1995, a federal parole violator warrant was issued. 

The warrant was placed as a detainer with Connecticut state officials on February 23,

1995. Petitioner’s state sentence was imposed on May 20, 1996. Otto completed

service of his state sentence on June 1, 2001 and was placed into federal custody. 

Otto is apparently claiming that because the placement of a federal detainer prevented

his release on bail, the period of his state incarceration from the date of his arrest to

imposition of his state sentence (January 19, 1995 to May 20, 1996) should be applied

towards service of his federal sentence.

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 6 of 10
7

18 U.S.C. § 3568 provides in relevant part:

§ 3568. Effective date of sentence; credit for time in

custody prior to the imposition of sentence.

The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted

of an offense shall commence to run from the date on

which such person is received at the penitentiary,

reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. The

Attorney General shall give any such person credit

toward service of his sentence for any days spent in

custody in connection with the offense or acts for

which sentence was imposed.

On November 1, 1987, § 3568 was repealed by the Sentencing

Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3585, which provides as follows:

§ 3585. Calculation of a term of imprisonment

(a) Commencement of sentence. -- A

sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the

date the defendant is received in custody awaiting

transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence

service of sentence at, the official detention facility at

which the sentence is to be served.

(b) Credit for prior custody. -- A

defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a

term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in

official detention prior to the date the sentence

commences --

(1) as a result of the offense for

which the sentence was imposed; or

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 7 of 10
2

 § 3585 is applicable only to those federal offenses committed after its

effective date of November 1, 1987.

3

 It is also noted that a federal district court does not have authority to adjust

a federal sentence for that period of time a defendant spent in state custody on a nonrelated state sentence prior to sentencing by a district court. See United States

Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.3

8

(2) as a result of any other charge

for which the defendant was arrested

after the commission of the offense

for which the sentence was imposed;

that has not been credited against another sentence.2

 Based on the above, Otto clearly began serving the remainder of his federal

sentence on June 1, 2001. It is equally apparent that Petitioner cannot receive credit

against this federal sentence for unrelated periods of incarceration. Furthermore,

“credit against a federal sentence attaches only when a federal detainer is the exclusive

reason "for an inmate's pretrial confinement." United States v. Blankenship, 733 F.2d

433, 434 (6th Cir. 1984) (emphasis in original). An award of double credit is generally

prohibited, in other words, the instant Petitioner may not receive credit on his federal

sentence for time that has already been credited against his Connecticut state

sentence. See Chambers, 920 F. Supp. at 623. Even time “spent on an unrelated

state sentence that has been voided cannot be credited against a federal sentence." 

Holleman v. United States, 612 F. Supp. 384, 387 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (citations

omitted)3. 

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 8 of 10
9

Unfortunately, the record before this Court does not include any sentence

computation records of the State of Connecticut. Nonetheless, Otto has failed to

present any facts which could establish that he would have been eligible for release on

bail following his arrest in Connecticut. It is noted that the federal parole violation

warrant was not placed as a detainer with state officials until February 23, 1995. 

Thus, the detainer was clearly not the cause of Petitioner’s Connecticut state

confinement between January 14, 1995 (the date of his arrest) and February 23, 1995. 

Furthermore, the fact that Petitioner was imprisoned for a period of

approximately five (5) weeks prior to the imposition of the federal detainer clearly

undermines his vague, wholly unsupported claim that said detainer prevented his

release on bail. Otto has also failed to make a showing that the period of his

Connecticut incarceration from February 23, 1995 to June 1, 2001 was not applied

towards service of his state sentence. It is equally noted that copies of BOP records 

submitted by the Petitioner himself provide that he was paroled after service of 76

months and 18 days of “an effective 20 years suspended after the service of 12 years,

4 months” state sentence. Record document no. 1, Exhibit 5. The above

calculation supports a finding that Otto was given credit against his state sentence for

all time spent confined following his January 14, 1996 arrest on state charges.

Petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his statutory

good time has been miscalculated or that he is entitled to additional credit against his

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 9 of 10
4

 However, if Petitioner can establish that a period of time spent in state

custody due to the imposition of the Parole Commission’s detainer was not applied

towards service of his state sentence, this matter will be reconsidered. Otto is

forewarned that any motion for reconsideration must be submitted within ten (10)

days of the date of this Order.

10

federal sentence for time served in the State of Connecticut. Since Otto has not

presented a viable basis for an award of federal habeas corpus relief, his petition will

be denied.4 Consequently,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

3. Based on the conclusions herein, there is no basis for the issuance of a

Certificate of Appealablity.

 

 JAMES F. McCLURE, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:04-cv-01774-JFM-JVW Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 10 of 10