2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-3-2011

Juan Ramos-Rodriguez v. Warden FCI Fort Dix

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2967

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Juan Ramos-Rodriguez v. Warden FCI Fort Dix" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 411.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/411
CLD-289 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2967

___________

JUAN C. RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 10-02904)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 15, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 3, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Juan C. Ramos-Rodriguez appeals pro se from an order dismissing his petition 

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because no substantial question is presented by this 

appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. 
2

I. Background

As the parties are familiar with the background of this case, we will only 

summarize those facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal. Ramos-Rodriguez was 

arrested in Puerto Rico on May 4, 2001, and detained under the laws of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on charges for attempted murder, auto theft, and weapons 

and drug violations. On September 12, 2001, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad 

prosequendum, Ramos-Rodriguez was temporarily transferred to federal custody to face 

federal charges. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine 

base, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced on November 18, 

2002, to a term of imprisonment of 120 months.1

 1 A Commonwealth sentence had yet to be imposed and thus the Federal District 

Judge did not state a view on concurrency or consecutiveness.

 

Ramos-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to two counts each of weapons and drug 

violations in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico. On February 23, 2003, he was sentenced 

to a term of imprisonment of seven years, which the Commonwealth Judge indicated was 

to run concurrently with the federal sentence. Ramos-Rodriguez was returned to the 

custody of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on June 17, 2003. He completed his 

Puerto Rican sentence on May 2, 2005, and was released to federal custody on May 4, 

2005, to begin serving his federal sentence. Upon taking custody of Ramos-Rodriguez, 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculated his federal sentence to commence on 

May 2, 2005, with a projected release date of January 16, 2014. 
3

Through the administrative process, in 2006, Ramos-Rodriguez sought to receive 

credit to his federal sentence for the time he served in Commonwealth prison through 

BOP’s discretionary authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3621. BOP denied this request, stating 

that “[u]nder [18 U.S.C.] § 3585(b), the period [of time for which he seeks credit] cannot 

be awarded to the federal sentence.”2

In 2008, Ramos-Rodriguez filed a § 2241 petition, arguing that BOP has the 

discretionary authority to designate, nunc pro tunc, the prison in which he served his 

Commonwealth sentence as the place of federal confinement, and requested the District 

Court to compel BOP to consider him for this designation. He also argued that his 

federal sentence should be credited with time served on his Commonwealth sentence to 

comport with the Commonwealth Judge’s order that his sentences run concurrently. 

While Ramos-Rodriguez’s § 2241 petition was pending, in October 2010, BOP reviewed 

and denied his request for a nunc pro tunc designation pursuant to the factors under 18 

U.S.C. § 3621. The District Court denied his § 2241 petition, noting that BOP considered 

his request and finding that BOP did not abuse its discretion. Ramos-Rodriguez timely 

appealed.

 BOP’s responses to his request did not discuss 18 

U.S.C. § 3621(b). 

 2 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) provides that 

A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of 

imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the 

date the sentence commences--

(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or 

(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested 

after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; 

that has not been credited against another sentence.
4

II. Discussion

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over 

conclusions of law. See Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 479 (3d Cir. 1990). Insofar 

as BOP reviewed Ramos-Rodriguez’s request for nunc pro tunc designation, our review 

is limited to whether BOP abused its discretion. Id. at 478.

BOP has the statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3621 to nunc pro tunc designate 

the place of confinement for a prisoner’s federal sentence. Barden, 921 F.2d at 483. 

Thus, BOP can designate the Commonwealth prison as the official facility for service of 

Ramos-Rodriguez’s federal sentence, thereby allowing his Commonwealth and federal 

sentences to run concurrently. See id. at 478-79. We have held that a petitioner is 

entitled to have his request for a nunc pro tunc designation examined by BOP under § 

3621(b). Id. at 483. However, BOP has broad discretion in determining this designation. 

Id. 

When Ramos-Rodriguez filed his § 2241 petition, it appears that BOP violated our 

holding in Barden by failing to address his request for nunc pro tunc designation. 

However, prior to the District Court’s disposition of Ramos-Rodriguez’s § 2241 petition, 

BOP reviewed his nunc pro tunc designation request and denied it based on factors under 

§ 3621(b). Therefore, Ramos-Rodriguez’s request to compel BOP to consider him for 

nunc pro tunc designation is moot.

Upon review of the record, we agree with the District Court that BOP did not 

abuse its discretion in denying his request for nunc pro tunc designation. BOP reviewed 

Ramos-Rodriguez’s request under the five factors stated in § 3621(b), and denied the 
5

request based on the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and 

characteristics of the prisoner, and the silence of the federal district court on whether his 

sentence was to be concurrent. 

In conducting its analysis pursuant to § 3621(b), BOP sent a letter to the Federal 

District Judge, inquiring about his position on the issue of concurrency. The Federal

District Judge did not respond to BOP’s inquiry. BOP’s interpretation of the Federal 

District Judge’s silence as a factor against concurrency was not unreasonable. Cf. 18 

U.S.C. § 3584(a) (“Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run 

consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.”). RamosRodriguez argues that BOP should have granted the nunc pro tunc designation to fulfill 

the wishes of the Commonwealth Judge. BOP, however, is not bound in any way by the 

Commonwealth Judge’s determination that the state and federal sentences are to run 

concurrently. Barden, 921 F.2d at 478 n.4 (citing U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). 

BOP also noted that Ramos-Rodriguez’s role in the conspiracy to distribute 

heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana was that of an “enforcer,” that he routinely 

carried weapons during the course of the conspiracy, and that he was charged with 

murder. It appears that BOP duly considered Ramos-Rodriguez’s nunc pro tunc 

designation request, weighed the factors, and did not abuse its discretion in exercising its 

broad discretion under § 3621(b). See Barden, 921 F.2d at 483. The District Court, 

therefore, properly denied Ramos-Rodriguez’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.