2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-25-2010 

# An gel D eJ es u s v

. Mich a el Z e nk P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 10-1226

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " An g e l D eJ e s us v

. M ich a e l Z e nk " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1629. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1629CL D- 1 4 0 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1226

___________ AN G E L M A R IA D E JE S U S , Appe l l ant

v. M R . M IC H A E L Z E N K , Ward eno f M V C C ; C O R N E L L C O M P AN IE S , IN C .; FE DE RA L B UR EA U O F P RI SO NS

____________________________________ On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e Western D istrict o f P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci v. No. 08- c v- 00155) Di s tr i c t Judge : Honor abl e Ki m

R. Gi bs on

____________________________________ Subm i tt e d for

Pos s i bl e Summ ary

Ac t i on P u rsu an t to T h irdC ircu it L A R 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Mar c h 4, 2010 Befo re : BAR RY , FISHE R andST AP LE TO N, Circ uit Jud ges

( Opi ni on fi l e d: Mar c h 25, 2010 )

_________ OP INI ON

_________ PER CURI AM. A n g el M aria D eJesu s, a f ed eral in m ate inP en n sylv an ia, f ileda p etitio nf

o r a w rit of habe a s c or

pus unde r 28 U. S. C. § 2241 i n the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for theA w ri t of h abea s c orpu s a d p rose qu endu m “m er el y ‘l oans’ the pris on er

to federal 1 authorit ie s. ” Rios v. W il ey , 201 F.3d25 7, 27 5 (3dCir. 20 00 ). 2 Western D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia, claim in g th at th e B u reauo f P riso n s (B O P ) erredin re fu si ng to desi gn at e nun c pro tunc a s tate corr ec ti on al faci li ty fo r s er vice of his feder al s e nt e nc e s o that

De J e s us “ c oul d ga i n c r e di t a ga i ns t hi s fe de r a l s e nt e nc e . ” Ptn. at 2. The Di s tr i c t Court a dopt e d aMa gi s tr at e Judge ’ s Re port and Re c omm e ndat i on and de ni e d the p etitio n . D eJ es us t i m el y fi l ed t hi s appea l . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e w i l l s um m ar i l y aff i r m beca us e this appeal pres ents “no sub st anti al qu estio n .” 3 dC ir. IO P C h . 1 0 .6 an dL .A .R . 2 7 .4 . T h e essen tial f

acts are n o t ind isp u te. O nJu ly 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , D eJesu s w as arrestedin N ew Y o rkf

o r a dru g p o ssessio no f

f en se, an dlater sen ten cedb y a N ew Y o rkco u rt to 3 to 6 y ears in pris on . On S epte m ber 16, 20 05 , while se rving the st at e s ente nce, DeJe sus was i ndi c t e d i n the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for the Southe rn Di s tr i c t

of Ne w York on a c har ge of i l l e ga l r e e ntry

a ft e r de port at i on. On Se pt e m be r 29, 2005, pur s uant

t o awr i t of habe a s c or

pus a d pr os e que ndum , De J e s us wa s t ake n i nt o fe de r a l c us t ody for pr oc e s s i ng of the federa l c harge. On May 5, 20 06 , a fter

entr y of a guilty plea , the federalcourt 1 im p o seda sen ten ce o f

5 7 m o n th s inp riso n , to ru nco n cu rren tly w ith th e state sen ten ce. Th e BOP has r

un the federa l s ente nce from it s dat e of im

po si ti on (May

5, 20 06 ). On May 25 , 200 6, DeJe sus was re turned to st at e c ustody . He was then parole d f ro m th e state sen ten ce o nS ep tem b er 8 , 2 0 0 6 , an dtran sf

erredto f ed eral cu sto dy

to3

com plet e s er ving the federa l s ente nce. Th e r ec ord ind ic at es that , with f ull goo d con du ct ti m e c re dit, DeJe sus’ proj ec te d d at e t o com plet e the federalse ntence is June 26 , 201 0, at w h ich tim e h e w ill b e releasedto th e B u reauo f Imm ig ratio nan dC u sto m s E n f o rcem en t. DeJe sus c la im s that the BO P err ed in re fu si ng his r equest to cr edit his feder al se ntence fo r a ll the t im e that he s er ved in state pris on prior t o im po si ti on of

the federa l s e nt e nc e ( i . e . , Jul y

17, 2003, thr ough Se pt e m be r 29, 2005) . He ar gue s that nunc pr o t

unc de s i gnat i on of the s t at e pr i s on for s e rvi c e of the fe de r a l s e nt e nc e i s r e qui r e d t o r e m e dy the a dd it ional t im e that he c la im s t o h ave s pent in st at e c ustody du e t o the pu rporte d delay in bringing the federa l prose cuti on fo r i ll egal re entr y . Further

m ore, he ar gu es that he woul d have be e n e l i gi bl e for par ol e on the s t at e s e nt e nc e on Nove m be r 15, 2005, but that his a bili ty to com plet e the re qu ir em ents fo r par ole wer e del ayed wh en he was t aken i nt o fe de r a l c us t ody

on the wr i t

i n Se pt e m

be r 2005. Dist ingu is hing Bardon v. Keoh ane, 92 1 F .2d 4 76 (3d C ir . 199 0), andthe other cases reliedup o nb y

D eJesu s, th e M ag istrate Ju d g e f o u n dth at th e B O P d idn o t err in ref u sin g to af

f o rd“d o ub le cred it” f

o r tim e th at D eJesu s serv edinstate cu sto dy p rio r to im po si ti on of

the federa l s ente nce, as that ti m e was cr edit ed to the s tate se ntence . W e agre e. W he n, a s he r e , afe de r a l di s tr i c t c ourt e xpr e s s l y

s t at e s that

i t s s e nt e nc e i s t o r

unThe judgm e nt i n De J e s us ’ fe de r a l c a s e i m pos e d at e rm

of i m pr i s onm e nt

of “ 57 2 m on ths t o run concurrent wit h the st at e s ente nce the defend ant i s c urre ntly se rving.” 4 concurrentl y

with a s tate se ntence , the BOP will deem the federa l s ente nce t o comm ence 2 on the dat e i m

po se d, se e 18 U .S.C. § 35 85 (a ), and it wil l des ignate the s tate inst it ution as the pl a c e fo r

s e rvi c e of

the fe de r a l s e nt e nc e . Se e 18 U. S. C. § 3 62 1( b) . Th e BO P pr ope r l y fol l owe d that

c our s e he r e and be gan De J e s us ’ fe de r a l s e nt e nc e on i t s dat e of im p o sitio n , th ereb y

allo w in g h im

to serv e th e state an df

ed eral sen ten ces co n cu rren tly f ro m M ay 5 , 2 0 0 6 , f

o rw ard . B u t D eJesu s w as n o t en titledto cred it f o r tim e serv edin st at e c ustody

prior t o im

po si ti on of

the federa l s ente nce. It is un disputed that

al l of D eJ es us’ t im e s er

ved p ri or to im

po si ti on of

the federa l se ntence was c re dite d to h is st at e s ente nce. Un der 18 U .S.C. § 35 85 (b), the BOP m ay n o t g r an t p r i o r c u s t o dy c r e d i t

f o r t i m e c r e d i t e dt o an o th e r

s e n t e n c e . S e e R i o s v . W i l e y, 20 1 F .3d 2 57 , 274 (3d C ir . 200 0). Bec ause DeJe sus r ec ei ved credi t on h is st at e s ente nce, h e can n o t, as th e M ag istrate Ju d g e f u lly ex p lain ed , receiv e d o ub le cred it. D eJesu s arg u es, n ev erth eless, th at h is situ atio nis “ex cep tio n al” an dw arran ts doubl e c r e di t

unde r W i l l i s v. Uni t e d St at e s , 438 F. 2d 923 ( 5th Ci r . 1971) , and Kay fe z v. Ga s e l e , 993 F. 2d 1288 ( 7th Ci r . 1993) . Thi s Court ha s e xpl a i ne d, howe ve r , that the r e a s o n i n g i nth e “ W i l l i s / K ay f e z l i n e o f c a s e s ” d o e s n o t

p e rmi t f e d e r a l c r e d i t

f o r t i me se rved “afte r the st at e s ente nce was im po se d b ut befo re the federa l s ente nce was pr onounc e d. ” Ri os , 201 F. 3d at 273 n. 13. De J e s us ha s not s hown that

hi s s i t uat i onp resen ts an y circu m stan ce in d icatin g th at th e B O P m isap p liedth e co n tro llin g statu tes in ref u sin g to aw ardd o ub le cred it. F o r th ese reaso n s, w e w ill af f irm th e D istrict C o u rt’s j u d g m en t.

5