NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 22-2146 

__________ 

KENNY CLYDE HOMER BEVARD, 

 Appellant 

v. 

WARDEN COLEMAN USP 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-02410) 

District Judge: Honorable Reneé M. Bumb 

____________________________________ 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

March 17, 2023 

Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: March 27, 2023) 

___________ 

OPINION*

_____________ 

PER CURIAM 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2

Pro se appellant Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard appeals from the District Court’s 

denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, 

we will dismiss the appeal in part and otherwise affirm the District Court’s judgment.

On January 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Iowa imposed on Bevard an 86-month term of imprisonment for possessing a stolen 

firearm, and a 21-month term for violating supervised release, for a total of 107 months. 

The court ordered the two terms to run consecutively and that Bevard’s federal sentence 

run consecutive to a five-year state sentence imposed in the Iowa state court, which he 

was already serving. Except for his brief escape in April 2014, Bevard had been in the 

custody of state or federal officials since January 21, 2014. 

In 2021, Bevard, who had finished serving his state sentence and was in federal 

custody at FCI-Fairton in New Jersey, filed a § 2241 petition in the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the calculation of his federal sentence. 

Specifically, Bevard claimed that the BOP had not properly credited the time he spent 

incarcerated from January 21, 2014, until August 11, 2016—the date of his federal 

sentence commitment. As it turns out, he was partially correct. In preparing a response 

to the § 2241 petition, the BOP updated his federal sentence computation to include 

custody credit from January 21, 2014, through April 16, 2014, and July 19 through July 

20, 2016, because that time in custody had not been applied to any sentence. It also now 

recognized that Bevard had been in exclusive federal custody on an earlier day (July 18, 

2016). Nevertheless, because Bevard’s federal sentence ran consecutive to his state 

sentence, he did not otherwise earn custody credit while in state custody. If he earned all 
3 

available good time credit, the BOP projected Bevard’s release date to be January 9, 

2024. The District Court accepted the Government’s computation and denied Bevard’s § 

2241 petition. He filed a timely notice of appeal. 

 On appeal, Bevard appears to have conceded that his state and federal sentences 

ran consecutively but argued that the BOP had not properly accounted for his federal 

custody between April 5, 2016, and August 1, 2016. In support, he submitted an 

“Offender Movement Summary” issued by the Iowa Department of Corrections which 

showed that Bevard was paroled to the U.S. Marshal Service on May 5, 2016. In light of 

that document, the BOP once again revised its sentence computation to reflect that 

Bevard entered exclusive federal custody on May 5, 2016 (rather than July 18, 2016).1

 It 

likewise adjusted his projected release date to November 22, 2023, if he receives all 

available good time credit. See 3d Cir. Dkt. no. 7 at 4. The Government filed a brief 

opposing Bevard’s appeal on exhaustion, waiver, and mootness grounds. The time for 

Bevard to file a reply brief has now passed. 

 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review factual findings for 

clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290, F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) 

(per curiam). Considering that the BOP has already revised its computation to 

incorporate May 5, 2016, as the date he was paroled to federal custody and that he has 

1

 The Government maintains that Bevard’s use of “April 5, 2016” is a typographical 

error, because the document he submitted shows that he was paroled to exclusive federal 

custody on “May 5, 2016”. 
4 

remained in federal custody ever since, there is no relief for the Court to grant in this 

appeal. See Blanciak v .Allegheny Ludlum Copt., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) 

(noting that “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a 

court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot”). 

To the extent that Bevard intended to argue that he is entitled to a custody credit between 

April 5 and May 5, 2016, we will affirm the judgment because evidence in the record 

before the District Court supports the BOP’s assertion that Bevard entered federal 

custody on May 5, 2016. See ECF No. 3-4 at 11; No. 7 at 13, 17; see also United States 

v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 201 (3d Cir. 2015) (explaining that we may affirm the 

District Court for any reason supported by the record). 

Accordingly, we will partially dismiss the appeal as moot, and will otherwise 

affirm the judgment of the District Court.