FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 15, 2006 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- 13352 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 2 1 1 0 - C V- MGC P E D R O C A S T I L L O , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s L O R E N G R A V E R , W a r d e n , F C I , M i a m i , F l or i da , F e de r a l B ur e a u o f P r is o n s , F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N 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 forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 15, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F eder al pri soner P edro C as ti l l o, proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s de ni a l of

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2241 pe ti ti on forw r i tof habe a s c orpus , s e e ki ng cr edi tfor ti m e he s er ved b etw ee n h i s i nd i ctm entand sent enci ng w hi l e he w as i m pr i s one d fora nothe rof fe ns e . C a s ti l l o f

i l e d hi s pe ti ti on a f

t e rthe e f fe c ti ve da t e of th e An ti t e rr o r i s m a n d Ef fe c ti v e De a th Pe n a l ty Ac to f 1 9 9 6 ( “ AEDPA” ) , Pu b . L. N o . 1 0 4 - 1 3 2 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 2 1 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; th e p r o v is io n s o f th a t a c t g o v e r n th is a p p e a l. O n O c t obe r13, 1999, C a s ti l l o w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 87 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt ( “th e 8 7 - m o n th s e n te n c e ” ) a f te rp le a d in g g u ilty to ad ru g o f fe n s e . U n r e la te d to th is dr ug of fe ns e a nd w hi l e he w a s i n c us t ody , C a s ti l l o w a s i ndi c t e d on O c t obe r12, 1999, fordr ug a nd f

i r e a r m s of

fe ns e s . C a s ti l l o pl e d gui l ty t o the s e of fe ns e s a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d on D e c e m be r2, 2002, t o 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntforthe dr ug o f fe n s e s , to r u n c o n c u rr e n tly w ith th e c o n s p ir a c y s e n te n c e ( “th e 6 0 - m o n th c o n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e ” ) , a n d to 6 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t fo rth e f ir e a r m o f fe n s e , to ru n co n secu ti v el y t o th e ag g reg at ed 8 7 -m o n th an d 6 0 -m o n th co n cu rren tsen t en ces (“ the 60 -m on th con se cuti ve se nt ence ”) . T here af t er , the B urea u o f P ri sons (“ B O P ”) a g g r e g a te d th e r e m a in d e ro f C a s tillo ’s 8 7 - m o n th s e n te n c e w ith th e 6 0 - m o n th co n cu rren tsen t en ce i n t o a si n g l e t erm o f i m p ri so n m en tw i th a fu l l -t erm rel ease dat e of D ec em ber 1, 20 07 . T he B O P then g ave C as ti l l o 3 82 days of go od cond uct ti m e c r e di ta nd 484 da y s of c r e di tforti m e s e r ve d be t w e e n hi s a rr e s ton J une 16,3

19 98 , and O ct ob er12 , 19 99 (the day before the 87 -m on th sent ence com m ence d), fo rap r o je c te d r e le a s e d a te o f

J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e B O P th e n a d d e d th e 6 0 - m o n th c o n s e c u ti v e s e n t e n c e w h i c h , a f t e ra n a d d i ti o n a l 2 3 5 d a y s o f g o o d c o n d u c tti me c r e di t , y i e l de d a n ove r a l l pr oj e c t e d r e l e a s e da t e of N ove m be r21, 2009. C a s ti l l o a r gue s tha t , a thi s s e nt e nc i ng forthe drug a nd f i r e a r m of fe nc e s , the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s st at em en tth ath e “ sh al l recei v e cred i tfo r ti m e serv ed si n ce th e case began” requi re d the B O P t o run hi s 60-m on th con curr entse nt ence fr om O ct ob er 1 2 , 1 9 9 9 , th e d a te h e w a s in d ic te d fo rth e d ru g a n d f ir e a r m s o f

fe n s e s . C a s tillo re l i es on S ec ti on 5G 1. 3(c) of the U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual (“ U . S . S . G . ”) , as w el l as the T hi rd C i rc ui tca se R u g g i a n o v. R ei sh , 307 F . 3d 121, 128 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , forthe pr opos i ti on tha tac onc urr e nts e nt e nc e m us tbe r un “f u lly o rr e tr o a c tiv e ly c o n c u rr e n tly .” C a s tillo a r g u e s th a t a n y o th e rr e s u lt w o u ld unfa i r l y pe na l i z e hi m forthe de l a y be t w e e n hi s i ndi c tm e nta nd hi s s e nt e nc i ng, w hi ch w as no thi s faul t . F i nal l y, C as ti l l o ass ert s thatthe di stri ctcourtca n a l t e r na ti ve l y gr a nthi m the a ppr opr i a t e c r e di tt ow a r ds hi s pr i s on s e nt e nc e by r e m a n d in g h is c a s e fo rc o n s id e r a tio n o f ad o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .0 . In re v iew in g th e d en ial o f a h ab ea s p etitio n , w e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s fa ctual fi nd i ng s for cl ear e rr or and revi ew de no vo the court ’ s s t atut ory4

in te rp r e ta tio n . R od ri gu ezv. L am er , 6 0 F .3 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . W e f i nd m e r i t l e s s C a s ti l l o’ s a r gum e nttha tthe B O P w a s r e qui r e d t o run “f u lly a n d r e tr o a c tiv e ly c o n c u rr e n tly ” th e 6 0 - m o n th c o n c u rr e n t d ru g s e n te n c e w ith the 87 -m on th sent ence . F i rs t , S ec ti on 5G 1. 3(c) st at es thata s ent ence “ m ay be i m pos e d t o r un c onc urr e nt l y , pa r ti a l l y c onc urr e nt l y , orc ons e c uti ve l y t o the pr i or un di sc harged t er m of i m pri sonm ent , ” w hi ch i s nota m andat e. U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3(c) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S e c o n d , R uggi ano , anon- bi ndi ng T hi r d C i r c ui tc a s e , us e s the ph ra se “ ful l y a nd re troac ti vel y c on curr ent l y” i n i nt erpreti ng S ec ti on 5G 1. 3(b), w h ich re q u ires th e tw o se n ten ce s to ar ise f ro m th e s am e in cid en t. C as ti ll o ’s s e nt e nc e s w e r e unr e l a t e d. F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc i ng C a s ti l l o t o the 60- m o n th c o n c u rr e n t a n d c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s h a d n o a u th o r ity to b in d th e B O P in st ati ng thatC as ti l l o “ shal l re ce i ve cr edi tfor ti m e s er ved si nce the ca se began. ” D is tr ic t c o u r ts ar e n o t a u th o r iz e d to c o m p u te ap r e s e n te n c e c r e d it a t s e n te n c in g . Uni te d State s v . Wi ls on , 503 U . S . 329, 334, 112 S . C t . 1351, 1354, 117 L . E d. 2d 5 9 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . I n d e e d , C a s tillo q u o te s o n ly p a r tia lly th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta te m e n t, w h ic h c o n tin u e s , “b u t th e [ B O P ] d e c id e s h o w to g iv e it to y o u , a n d m o s t lik e ly th e y w o n ’t g iv e y o u c r e d it fo rth a t.” T h e c o m p u ta tio n o f c r e d it fo ras e n te n c e is th e r e s p o n s ib ility o f

th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l, w h o h a s d e le g a te d it to th e B O P . I d. at 3 3 5 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 1 3 5 5 .5

S e c tio n 3 5 8 5 ( b ) o f

T itle 1 8 o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s C o d e p r o v id e s th a t: A de fe nda nts ha l l be gi ve n c r e di tt ow a r d the s e r vi c e of at e r m of im p r is o n m e n t fo ra n y tim e h e h a s s p e n t in o f f ic ia l d e te n tio n p r io rto the da t e the s e nt e nc e c om m e nc e s – ( 1) a s ar e s ul tof the of fe ns e for w hi c h the s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d; or( 2) a s ar e s ul tof a ny othe rc ha r ge forw hi c h the de fe 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 offe nse for w hi ch the se nt ence w as i m po se d; thathas notbeen cr edi t ed agai nstanother s ent ence . 18 U . S . C . § 3585( b) . H a vi ng r e vi e w e d the s e nt e nc e c a l c ul a ti on, w e f i nd tha tthe B O P ’s c a lc u la tio n a c c o r d s w ith th e s ta tu te ’s r e q u ir e m e n ts . C a s ti l l o a l s o f

i l e d a“ M oti on t o P r e s e r ve I s s ue A nd/ O rB e R e m a nde d for U ncon sti tut i on al S ent ence ” argui ng thatthi s s ent ence i s uncon sti tut i on alun der Uni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . B e c a us e he di d notr a i s e thi s i s s ue i n hi s pe ti ti on t o the di s tr i c tc our t , w e w i l l not c o n s id e rit o n a p p e a l. See W al ke r v . Jones , 10 F . 3d 1569, 1572 ( 11th C i r . 1994) (“ [A ] n i ss ue no tra i se d i n the di stri ctcourtand rai se d for the fi rs tti m e i n an app ea l w i l l notbe c ons i de r e d by thi s c our t . ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny hi s m oti on. I n s um , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng C a s ti l l o’ s pe ti ti on be c a us e he w a s n o t e n title d to d o u b le c r e d it fo rtim e a lr e a d y s e r v e d a n d c r e d ite d a g a in s t h is 8 7 -m o n th se n ten ce . L ik ew ise, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t errin re fu sin g C as ti ll o ’s al t er nati ve sugg es ti on thati tsi m pl y gra nthi m a dow nw ar d d epar ture und er U . S . S . G . § 5 K 2. 0 b ec ause court s are proh i bi t ed fr om m od i fy i ng al re ady i m po se d6

te r m s o f im p r is o n m e n t u n le s s th e m o d if ic a tio n fa lls w ith in as ta tu to r y e x c e p tio n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is a f f ir m e d , a n d th e m o tio n to pr e s e r ve i s de ni e d. AF F I RME D. MOT I ON DE NI E D.