IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

STANLEY B. EXUM §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-89

WARDEN, USP BEAUMONT MEDIUM §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Stanley B. Exum, an inmate confined within the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), proceeding pro

se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner contends

the BOP has improperly calculated his sentence. Petitioner seeks credit towards his federal sentence

for time spent in custody prior to sentencing.

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties

to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations

for the disposition of the case.

Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary

Judgment filed by Respondent. (Doc. #6.) As Respondent has presented information outside 

the pleadings, the filing will be considered as a Motion for Summary Judgment. See 

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(d).

Factual Allegations

In his Petition, (doc. #1), Petitioner states that he was previously convicted of a federal

offense. He states that at the sentencing hearing, the court directed that he receive credit towards

his sentence for time spent in custody as a result of his federal offense. Petitioner’s judgment states

that he is sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment, “with credit for time served while in custody for

this federal offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).” (Doc. #6-1 at 36.). Despite the court’s

directive, Petitioner states the BOP has refused to give him credit towards his sentence for time spent

in custody prior to the date of his conviction. 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

106
The Motion for Summary Judgment

Respondent contends Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Attached to the Motion for Summary

Judgment is a Declaration from Juannetta Hayes, a management analyst at the BOP’s Designation

and Sentence Computation Center. Ms. Hayes states, in part, as follows:

In February 2020, inmate Exum was arrested and released on bond for Possession

of a Controlled Substance in Midland County, Texas, Case No. CR55809.

On May 18, 2020, inmate Exum was arrested and detained by state authorities for

Evading Arrest in Midland County, Case No. CR55313. That same day, based on

circumstances arising during this arrest, a federal criminal complaint was filed in the

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Magistrate Case

Number 20-MJ-178) charging inmate Exum with being a Felon in Possession of a

Firearm.

On May 19, 2020, inmate Exum was temporarily transferred to federal custody on

a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, to face the Felon in Possession charge. 

On July 20, 2020, an indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas (Case Number 20-cr-192), charging inmate Exum with

being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm.

On December 8, 2020, the Western District of Texas imposed a 37-month term of

imprisonment. The judgment was silent as to whether the sentence should be served

concurrently or consecutively with any sentences to be imposed in Midland County,

Texas, Case Nos. CR55809 & CR55313.

Inmate Exum was then returned to state custody to face sentencing on his pending

Midland County charges. On February 26, 2021, he was sentenced to a total of five

years’ imprisonment with the TDCJ, and received credit for all time spent in custody.

Inmate Exum remained in primary state custody on his Midland County charges until

September 27, 2021. At that time, he was paroled on his state charges and released

to exclusive federal jurisdiction. Inmate Exum’s federal sentence commenced at that

time.

Because inmate Exum already received credit against his state sentences for the time

spent in custody from May 18, 2020, through September 26, 2021, this time cannot

be credited to his federal sentence. Any time spent in custody in February 2020

cannot be credited against inmate Exum’s federal sentence because it occurred

before, and was unrelated to, the commission of his instant federal offense. 

Moreover, it appears that time was also credited against inmate Exum’s state

sentence in Case No. CR55809. Thus, any time credit resulting from that detention

is squarely precluded by 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

Time spent in custody under a writ of habeas corpus from non-federal custody will

not in and of itself be considered for the purpose of crediting presentence time. 

Moreover, as discussed, inmate Exum already received credit against his state

sentences for any time he spent on a writ between May and December 2020. 

Accordingly, he is not entitled to credit against his federal sentence for that time.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00089-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

107
Inmate Exum’s sentence has been computed in accordance with the above-cited

federal statutes and BOP Program Statements. He is currently scheduled to be

released from BOP custody on May 13, 2024, via Good Conduct Time release.

(Doc. #6-1 at 4-5).

Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if “the

movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Ellison

v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 85 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 1996). A dispute about a material fact is

genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable [finder of fact] could [find in favor of] the

nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

On summary judgment, “[t]he moving party has the burden of proving there is no genuine

[dispute] of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rivera v. Houston

Indep. Sch. Dist., 349 F.3d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 2003). If the moving party meets this burden, “the

non-moving party must show that summary judgment is not appropriate by setting forth specific

facts showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.” 

Rivera, 349 F.3d at 247. The nonmovant’s burden “is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt

as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a

scintilla of evidence.” Willis v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995).

Analysis

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) provides that a defendant shall be given credit towards his sentence

for time spent in official detention before the date the sentence commences, so long as that time has

not also been credited towards another sentence. Petitioner does not dispute that he received credit

towards his state sentence for the time spent in custody prior to the date of his federal conviction. 

As a result, Section 3585 does not permit this period of time to also be credited towards his federal

sentence.

3

Case 1:23-cv-00089-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/30/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

108
Petitioner correctly points out that his judgment provides that he is to be given credit towards

his federal sentence for the time he spent in custody as a result of his federal offense. However, the

Attorney General, through the BOP, determines what credit should be awarded for time spent in

custody prior to the commencement of a federal sentence. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,

333-34 (1992). A federal district court does not have statutory authority to award credits towards

a federal sentence that was also credited towards a state sentence. United States v. BenavidesHernandez, 548 F. App’x 278, 280 (5th Cir. 2013). As a result, the BOP was not required to give

Petitioner credit for time spent in custody prior to the date of his federal conviction.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether

Petitioner is entitled to relief and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Motion

for Summary Judgement should therefore be granted.

Recommendation

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

4

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 30th day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00089-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

109