FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1471 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00277 -CV -O C-10-G RJ LAZARO DIAZ, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant,
ve rs us CA RL Y L E H O L D E R, W ar de n, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 8, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: L az ar o D ia z, apr o se f ed er al pr iso ne r se rv ing a188 -m onth se nte nc e fo r
co n s p i ra cy t o d i s t ri b u t e f i v e k i l o g ra m s o f c o ca i n e, ap p ea l s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of his 28 U. S. C. § 2241 petition
. In his petition he argued that the Bureau2

of P ri sons ( “ BO P” ) im

pr ope rl y de nie d hi m

c re dit f or ti m e se rv ed a t l ibe rty

a nd sanctioned h im

for the loss of 27 day s of “ good tim e. ” T he district court dism issed the pe tit ion , f

ind ing tha t: (1 ) D ia z w as not en tit le d to cr ed it fo r tim e se rv ed a t l ibe rty because he kn ew or shoul d have known that he had no t served his federal se ntence,
an d th us w as pa rt ia lly

r es pons ibl e fo r be ing im pr ope rl y r el ea se d by

L oui siana officials af

ter the dism issal of Louisiana state charges, and (2) D iaz had not exhausted hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as to th e lo ss of 2 7 “ go od ti m e” d ay s.

“ In review ing th e district court’ s denial of habeas corpus petitio n, w e re view que sti ons of

law de nov o a nd the c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t f or cl ear error. ” L itt le v. H old er , 396 F. 3d 1319, 1321 (1 1th Ci r. 2005 ). A ft er on o ur tho ro ugh re vie w of

the
r e c o r da n dc a r e f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

t h e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e a f f i rm. The r elevant facts are stra ightforward. O n April 2 5 , 1 9 9 6 , a fter D iaz pled guilt y to conspirin g to dist ribute five kilogram s of cocaine, the United State s District Co urt f or the So uther

n D istri ct of L oui sianase nte nc ed

him to a 188- m onth te rm

of im pr iso nm en t. I n th e ins ta nt § 224 1 pe tit ion , D ia z sta te d th at , on M ay 23, 199 7, the BO P tr an sf

er re d hi m f ro m af ed er al pr iso n inF lor ida

( “ FC C C ole m an ”) , w he re he
w as se rv ing his 188 -m onth se nte nc e, ba ck to L oui siana to fa ce pe ndi ng s ta te c ha rg es . A cc or din g to D ia z, at

the ti m e of

his tr an sf er , BO P au tho ri tie s a lle ge d th at the y ga ve him a fo rm to si gn adv isi ng h im tha t i f sta te auth or iti es r el ea se d hi m , he w as toDiaz also alleg ed that afte r his a rre st, when he was returne d to c ustody at FCC Coleman, 1 he wa s w ro ng ly pu nishe d f or havin g “ e sc a

pe d, ” in t hat pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls t oo k 2 7 d ay s o f g oo d ti me ear ned fr om him. Diaz conce ded that the esc ape c harg es we re e ventually dropped, but maintaine d that he sh ou ld n ot h ave be e n s anc tio ne d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t D ia z did

no t e xha us t hi s administrative re medies as to this claim, and thus denied it. On a ppeal, Dia z does not dispute the d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s fi n d i n g. 3 im m ed ia te ly c ont ac t F CC Co le m an . D ia z av er re d th at he did not r em em be r sig nin g
suc h adoc um en t and tha t, ev en if the BO P ga ve him the doc um en t, he did not spe ak , read, or w r i t e E ng l i sh
. O n June 19 , 19 97 , a f t e r t he L ou i si a na st a t e c har ge s wer e dis m iss ed , the L oui siana au tho ri tie s re le as ed D ia z, an d he r em ai ne d a t l ibe rty f or 817 day s, until federa l authorities arre sted him after a tip from an inform ant. I n his habeas p e t i t i o n , Di a z s o u g h tc r e d i tf o r t h e 8 1 7 d a ys h e s p e n ta tl i b e rt y. 1 Holder, in his official capacity as Warden of FCC Colem an, r espond ed that when he was released to the Louisiana authorities for trial on the state charges, Dia z sig ne d a n a cknow le dgm en t f orm , w hic h st at ed , in pa rt : I am a w ar e tha t S ta te of

fi ci al s a re to r et

ur n m e to F ed er al c ust ody at the c onc lus ionof

m y S ta te tr ia l. I am

a lso a w ar e tha t S ta te officials should not release m e i n t o the com m unity
. If I am relea sed by

State a utho rities into the com

m unity , I am

aw are that m y F ed er al se nte nc e w ill not ru n, a nd tha t I w ill not r ec ei ve c re dit on m y F ed er al se nte nc e fo r an y pe ri od o f tim e I am

in the co m m un it y fol lo win g re le as e b y

Sta te off ic ia ls
. H old er f urthe r al le ge d th at

w he n D ia z w as r el ea se d fr om fe de ra l c ust ody , he w as “ on loan” to L oui sianaauth or iti es pur suant to a wr it of habe as c or pus ad pr ose que ndum fo r tr ia l and p oss ibl e se nte nc ing on the sta te c ha rg es . B ecaus e Diaz sig ne d th e4

acknowledgm ent form , H older m aintained that Diaz w as required to call the BO P, rather than rem aining in the com m unity for over two y ears. H older further stated that for the tim e that D i az re m ai ned in the comm unity , he wa s no lon ger classified as be ing in “ of

fi ci al de te nti on, ” an d w as the re fo re not e nti tle d to c redi t fo r ti m e spe nt at li be rty . F ina lly , H old er al le ged th at D ia z pr ovi de d no e vid en ce sup portin g th e cl ai m s th at

he did not re m em

be r sig nin g th e ac know le dgm en t f orm a nd tha t he did

not sp eak , read , or wri te Eng li sh
. T he dis tr ic t co urt no te d th at , a t the ti m e of it s r uli ng, w e ha d no t a dopt ed the doc tr ine of

c re dit f or ti m e spe nt a t l ibe rty . T he c ourt f urthe r fo und tha t un de r the tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es , it

w as c le ar tha t e ve n if the doc tr ine w as a va ila ble , it did not appl y to D ia z, w ho the dis tr ic t co urt de te rm ine d w as at le as t pa rt ia lly r es pons ibl e fo r his er ro ne ous lib er

ty
. T his co nc lus ion w as ba se d on the dis tr ic t co urt’s fi nd ing tha t D ia z ei the r kn ew or sho uld ha ve kno w n th at

a t the ti m e of

his r el ea se f

ro m L oui sianasta te c ust ody , j ust ove r a y ear af te r im posi tio n of hi s f

ed er al se nte nc e, he ha d no t sa tis fi ed

the 15- y ear fe de ra l sent en ce , an d hi s f ai lur e to d isc uss thi s w iththe
au tho ri tie s w he n he w as r el ea se d. T he dis tr ic t co urt al so fo und D ia z’ s pr es um pti on that he had “ won” a f

ederal appeal to be unreasonable, and high light ed Diaz ’ s failure to present

a ny e vid en ce of

ale git im at e ba sis f

or suc h abe lie f. T hus, ba se d onthe5

tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es , the c ourt de nie d D ia z’s § 22 41 p et iti on f or aw ri t of habe as c or

pus w ithpr ej udi ce . T his appe al f oll ow ed
. In United State s v. Barfield, 396 F. 3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2005 ), we rec ently noted tha t “pr ior

pr ec ed en t se ts o ut the ge ne ra l r ule tha t a delay i n th e com

m en ce m en t of
a se nt en ce doe s no t, by

it se lf , c onst itu te se rv ic e of

tha t se nte nc e. ” Id
. T hus, we concluded, because th e comm encem ent of Barfield’ s sentence was delay ed, she was not e nti tle d to cr ed it fo r tim e spe nt at lib er ty
. Id
. at 1148
. W e obse rv ed tha t the c as e did not pr es en t the iss ue of “ w he the r a de fe ndant w ho w as inc ar ce ra te d, r el ea se d in
error , and then reinca rc er at ed , s houl d rece ive credit for the tim e . . . spent .
. . a t liberty .” Id. at 1148 n. 6; see a lso Little v. H older, 396 F. 3d 13 19 (11th Cir. 2005 ). He re, the district court found that und er the totality of the circ um stances, D iaz
wa s at least partially responsib le for his tim e spent at liberty , and thu s was not entitled to c re dit , e ve n if

it w as a va ila

ble , be ca use D ia z kne w or shou ld ha ve know n tha t hi s relea se from

Louisiana state custo d y wa s not a release from feder al custody , nor a
sa tis fa ct ionof

the 15- y ear fe de ra l se nte nc e, f or w hic h he ha d se rv ed

j ust ove r one y ear. O n th is r ec or d, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s co nc lu si on , ba se d onthe tot al ity of the circum stances, including its finding con cerning Diaz ’ s knowledge or i m puted knowledge, supp orts deny ing re lief. Not only shou ld Diaz have known, but also as found bythe district court, his failure to discus s h i s s i t u ation with the authorities6

w he n he w as r el ea se d w as unr ea sona ble , a s w as his c la im ed

be lie f tha t he ha d w on a fe deral appeal -- he pr esented no evidence to su pport thi s contentio n and our review of the rec ord has revealed none. W e ca n f i n dn o c l e a r

e rr o r i n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s , n o r

d i dit inc or re ct ly appl y the e sta bli sh ed law of thi s C ir cu it. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the de nia l of D ia z’ s § 2 241 pe tit ion
. AFFIRMED.