United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3069

___________

Arnold R. Huskey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

P. W. Keohane, Warden, United States *

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 26, 1997

 Filed: January 6, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1978, Arnold Huskey was sentenced by a federal court to a twenty-year prison

term for kidnapping. He escaped from prison in 1984 and committed murder in

Oregon. An Oregon court sentenced him to life imprisonment, to be served

consecutively to the federal sentence. In 1985, a federal court sentenced Huskey for

the escape to a five-year prison term, running consecutively to the first federal sentence.

In 1988, Huskey pleaded guilty to committing mail fraud in 1985 and 1986, and a

federal court sentenced him to a consecutive five-year term. Pursuant to Oregon&s law,

Huskey&s state sentence began running concurrently with his federal sentences in 1991.
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Section 4161 was repealed as of November 1, 1987, but it remained in effect 2

for five years thereafter as to an individual who committed an offense before

November 1, 1987, and thus it applies to Huskey. See Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,

Pub. L. No. 98-473, §§ 218(a)(4), 235(b)(1)(B), 98 Stat. 2027 (1984).

-2-

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) later aggregated Huskey&s three federal sentences.

Huskey challenged the aggregation of his mail-fraud sentence in two similar petitions for

writ of mandamus. The District Court consolidated the cases, construed the petitions 1

as 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions, and dismissed them without prejudice, finding that

Huskey&s claims lacked merit. On appeal, Huskey seeks to prevent the BOP from

aggregating his mail-fraud sentence with his other two federal sentences. He also has

filed a motion to strike the government’s brief and a motion requesting an expedited

appeal. We deny those motions, and affirm the District Court&s judgment.

As Huskey is challenging the execution of his sentence, the District Court

correctly construed his petitions as § 2241 petitions. See Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh,

864 F.2d 804, 808-10 & n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc) (holding § 2241 was exclusive

remedy for claim that authorities failed to properly aggregate consecutive sentences in

determining parole eligibility, and noting efficacy of habeas precludes mandamus).

Because the Oregon sentence is running concurrently with Huskey&s aggregated

federal sentence, aggregation gives him maximum credit toward service of all his

sentences. Contrary to Huskey&s argument, the BOP had authority to aggregate his

consecutive federal sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 4161 (repealed effective Nov. 1, 1987);2

Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 459 F.2d 284, 285-86 (8th Cir. 1972) (per

curiam) (noting under § 4161, consecutive sentences are treated as single term for

computing good-time credit; finding BOP had authority to aggregate consecutive prison

terms). Aggregating consecutive sentences allows inmates to accumulate statutory
-3-

good time at the highest rate. See Briest, 459 F.2d at 286. Furthermore, Huskey may

not complain about the order in which he is to serve his sentences. See Jeter v.

Keohane, 739 F.2d 257, 258 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (stating whether individual

should be in federal or state custody is dispute between two sovereigns, and violator of

laws of two sovereigns may not complain about order of serving sentences).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.