FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 13, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11543 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -025 06 -C V -H -S C H A R L E S E D W A R D P O W E L L , J R . P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M A R T H A L . J O R D A N , W a r d e n , F e d e r a l C o rr e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n , T a lla d e g aA L ., A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m be r13, 2005) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A p p el l an tC h arl es E d w ard P o w el l , a fed eral p ri so n er ap p eal s p ro se the de ni a l , on the m e r i t s , of hi s habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on, 28 U . S . C . § 2241, i n w hi c h he cont ends thathe has c om pl et el y s erved h i s f eder al se nt ence s. P ow el l w as arre st ed and h el d o n A l abam a s t at e c harges pri or t o h avi ng hi s f eder al prob at i on re vo ked a nd a n 18- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on f e de r a l c ha r ge s t o run c ons e c ut i ve l yt o a ny s e n te n c e im p o s e d f

o rth e p e n d in g s ta te c h a r g e s . W h ile s till im p r is o n e d in A lab a m a , P o w e ll p le a d e d g u iltyto f e d e r a l c h a r g e s a n d r e c e iv e d a4 6 - m o n th c ons e c ut i ve f

e de r a l s e nt e nc e . P ow e l l a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i ndi ng tha the fa i l ed t o exh austadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es w as i ncorrec tbecause pursui ng an adm i ni stra t i ve re m edy w ou l d h ave been fut i l e and a w as t e of r es ou rc es , he had a tt e m pt e d pr e l i m i na ryi nf orm a l i nqui r i e s byr e que s t i ng tha thi s r e l e a s e da t e be v e r if ie d , a n d h is r e m e d ie s w e r e w a iv e d w h e n th e w a r d e n f o rw a r d e d h is in q u iryto the B O P ’ s r egi on al adm i ni stra t or. H e a l so ar gu es thathe w as no tre qu i re d t o see k a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s be c aus e he w a s c ha l l e ngi ng the m a nne ra nd c ondi t i on of hi s s e nt e nc e . O n the m e r i t s , he a r gue s tha tthe de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on s houl d be r e ve r s e d be c aus e i tw a s ba s e d on the m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on tha the w a s i n s t a t e c us t ody a tthe t i m e of

hi s A l aba m aa rr e s t , buthe w a s a c tua l l yunde rf e de r a l c us t ody a tthe t i m e be c aus e he w a s s e rvi ng at e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . H e c ont e nds tha tthe r e c or d doe s nots how a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the f e de r a l a nd s t a t e gove rnm e nt3

r e g a r d in g w h e th e rh is f e d e r a l o rs ta te s e n te n c e s h o u ld b e s e rv e d f ir s t, a n d th e r e is no e vi de nc e tha tthe s t a t e s oughtpr i m a ryc us t ody of hi m . H e a r gue s tha tthe go vernm entand the di stri ctcourti gn ored the fa ctthathi s s t at e s ent ence w as o r d e r e d to ru n c o n c u rr e n tlyto h is f e d e r a l s e n te n c e . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t h e b e g a n to se rve hi s f

eder al se nt ence on F ebruary23 , 19 99 , af t erhe re ce i ved h i s f

i rs tfe dera l s e nt e nc e a nd w a s t a ke n i nt o c us t ody bythe U ni t e d S t a t e s M a r s ha l ( “ M a r s ha l ” ) , a nd h is in c a r c e r a tio n in c o u n tyja il w a s th e p r a c tic a l e q u iv a le n t to f e d e r a l in c a r c e r a tio n . L as t l y, he ar gu es thatthere i s no p roof i n the re cord thatthe fe dera l courtever s u rr e n d e r e d c u s to d yo f

h im to th e s ta te a n d , th u s , h e is e n title d to 6 3 8 d a y s c r e d it a ga i ns thi s f

e de r a l s e nt e nc e f

orthe t ot a l a m ountof

t i m e he s pe nti n s t a t e pr i s on. W hen revi ew i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a habeas pet i t i on , w e r evi ew q u e s tio n s o f

la w a n d m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f la w a n d f

a c t de no vo , and fi nd i ng s of f ac t f o rc le a re rr o r . L eCro

y v. Sec’y, Flo ri da D ep t. o f C o rr. , 421 F . 3d 1237, 1259 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( § 2 25 4 p et i t i on ). T ypi ca l l y, col l at er al att ac ks on the val i di ty of a f e d e r a l s e n te n c e m u s t b e b r o u g h t u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 . D arby v. H aw k- Sa w ye r , 405 F . 3d 942, 944 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . S e c t i on 2241 pr ovi de s al i m i t e d, a ddi t i ona l ba s i s f or habe a s a c t i ons br oughtbyf e de r a l pr i s one r s . 28 U . S . C . § 2241. P r i s one r s s e e ki ng r e lie f p u r s u a n t to § 2 2 4 1 a r e s u b je c t to a d m in is tr a tiv e e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts . Ski nn erv. W

i ley , 35 5 F . 3d 12 93 , 12 95 (11th C i r. ) ce rt. deni ed , 541 U . S . 1036 ( 2 0 0 4 ) .4

T i t l e 28 § 542. 10 e t. s e q. , of the C ode of

F e de r a l R e gul a t i ons s e t s outthe p r o c e s s b yw h ic h af

e d e r a l p r is o n e rc a n “s e e kf o rm a l r e v ie w o f

a n is s u e r e la tin g to a ny a s pe c tof

hi s /he row n c onf

i ne m e nt . ” 28 C . F . R . § 542. 10( a ) . P ur s ua ntt o the procedure, an i nm at e m ustfi rs tpres entan i ss ue of concern i nform al l y t o st af f, u n l ess th e i n fo rm al reso l u t i o n att em p ti s w ai v ed b y th e w ard en , an d th en m u st s u b m it af

o rm a l w r itte n r e q u e s t ( B P - 9 ) . I d. a t § § 5 4 2 .1 3 ( a ) ,( b ) , 1 4 ( a ) . A n in m a te w ho i s nots a t i s f

i e d w i th the w a r de n’ s r e s pons e m a ys ubm i ta n appe a l on the appr opr i a t e f

orm ( B P - 10) t o the appr opr i a t e r e gi ona l di r e c t or , a nd i f he i s not s a t i s f i e d w i th the r e gi ona l di r e c t or ’ s r e s pons e , m a ys ubm i ta n appe a l on the ap p r o p r ia te f

o rm ( B P - 1 1 ) to th e g e n e r a l c o u n s e l. I d. a t § 5 4 2 .1 5 ( a ) . T h e o n ly pot e nt i a l l yappl i c abl e e xc e pt i on t o the f orm a l pr oc e s s i s tha ta n i nm a t e w ho r e a s onabl ybe l i e ve s the i s s ue i s s e ns i t i ve a nd hi s s a f e tya nd w e l l - be i ng w i l l be p la c e d in d a n g e rif

th e r e q u e s t b e c o m e s kn o w n a t th e in s titu tio n m a ys u b m it h is c o m p la in t d ir e c tlyto th e r e g io n a l d ir e c to r . I d. a t § 5 4 2 .1 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . P ur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3585: ( a ) C om m e nc e m e ntof

s e nt e nc e . - - A s e nt e nc e t o at e rm of im p r is o n m e n t c o m m e n c e s o n th e d a te th e d e f e n d a n t is re ce i ved i n cust od y aw ai t i ng transpo rt at i on t o, or arri ves vol unt a r i l yt o c om m e nc e s e rvi c e of s e nt e nc e a t , the of f i c i a l de t e nt i on f

a c i l i tya tw hi c h the s e nt e nc e i s t o be s e rve d. (b) C re di tfor pri or cust od y. -- A defe nd antshal l be gi ven c r e di tt ow a r d the s e rvi c e of at e rm of

i m pr i s onm e ntf

or a nyt i m e he ha s s pe nti n of f i c i a l de t e nt i on pr i ort o the5 dat e the se nt ence com m ence s- - (1) a s are sul tof the offe nse f or w hi ch the se nt ence w a s i m pos e d; or ( 2) a s ar e s ul tof

a nyothe rc ha r ge f

orw hi c h the de f e nda ntw a s a rr e s t e d a f

t e rthe c om m i s s i on of

the of f e ns e f orw hi c h the s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d; thathas notbeen cre di t ed agai nstanother s ent ence . “[ I ]f ad e f e n d a n t is in s ta te c u s to d ya n d h e is tu rn e do v e rto f e d e r a l o f f ic ia ls f o rf e d e r a l p r o s e c u tio n , th e s ta te g o v e rn m e n t’s lo s s o f ju r is d ic tio n is o n ly t e m por a ry . T he pr i s one rw i l l be r e turne d t o s t a t e c us t ody a tthe c om pl e t i on of the f e d e r a l p r o c e e d in g s o rth e f e d e r a l s e n te n c e if

th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t w is h e s to exec ut e i ti m m edi at el y. ” Ca u s e yv . C iv ile tti , 62 1 F . 2d 69 1, 69 3 (5th C i r. 19 80 ). T he re cord cl earl y dem on stra t es thatP ow el l never pursued the form al a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e dypr oc e s s a nd, thus , f a i l e d t o e xhaus thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e d ie s , a n d n o e x c e p tio n ap p lie s . A d d itio n a lly , P o w e ll w a s n o t e n title d to c r e d it a g a i n s th i s f

e d e r a l s e n t e n c e f

o rt i m e h e s p e n ti n f

e d e r a l c u s t o d yp u r s u a n tt o two w ri t s o f h ab eas co rp u s ad pr os e que ndum , orf ort i m e he s pe nti n s t a t e pr i s on s e rvi ng hi s s t a t e s e nt e nc e . T he r e c or d a l s o s how s tha tP ow e l l w a s gi ve n c r e di ton hi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e f

ort i m e s pe nta w a i t i ng tr i a l on s t a t e c ha r ge s tha tw a s not c r e d ite d a g a in s t h is s ta te s e n te n c e . T h e r e f o r e , b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly d e n ie d P o w e ll’s p e titio n , w e a f f irm its ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.