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- 3197

___________ ER I C D A V I S,

A ppel l ant v. T. R. SNI EZEK

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 10- cv- 00740) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber7, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, G R E E N A W A Y , J R . and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed D ece m ber10, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM E ri c D av is ap p ea ls pro se f rom the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d en y ing h is pe ti ti o n fo r a wr i to f h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f f i rm. I.D avi s cont ends thatthe B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) has m i s cal cul at ed hi s s ent ence byr efus i ng t o cr edi thi m forcert ai n t i m e s erved. D avi s w as i n M ary l and s t at e cus t ody w hen, on D ece m ber5, 2005, a M ary l and s t at e courts ent ence d hi m t o fi ve y ear s of i m pri sonm ent ( l ess t i m e served ) fora st at e parol e viol at i on . A fede ral i nd i ct m ent al so had bee n fi l ed aga i ns thi m . O n D ece m ber16, 2005, the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e D istric t o f

M a ry lan d iss u e d a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s a d p ro se q u e n d u m to c o m p e l h is appea r ance t o ans w erthe fe der al char ges . A U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal exec ut ed the w r i tand to o k h im in to f

e d e ra l cu sto d yo n Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 6 . T h a t sa m e d a y , a f e d e ra l M a g istra te Ju d g e e n ter e d a n o rd e r o f d e ten tio n o n th e f

e d e ra l p a rties ’ a g re e m e n t w ith o u t p re ju d ice to thei rabi l i tyt o chal l enge the fe der al det ent i on. D a v is re m a in e d in f

e d e ra l c u s to d yf

o r t h e d u ra tio n o f

h is f e d e ra l p ro c e e d in g . D u rin g th a t ti m e , h is M a ry lan d sta te s e n ten c e e x p ire d o n S e p tem b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 . D a v is u lt im atelyp lead ed g u il tyto the fe d era l cha rge s, an d the M ary land D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d hi m t o 168 m onths of i m pr i s onm enton D ece m ber18, 2008. T he U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal Servi ce, unaw ar e thatD avi s had compl et ed hi s M ary l and s t at e s ent ence , r eturned hi m t o s t at e cus t odyon J anuary16, 2009. T he M ary l and D epartm entof C orr ect i ons s oon d is c o v e re d th a t h is s ta te s e n te n c e h a d e x p ir e d a n d re le a s e d h im o n J a n u a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 . D a v i s s u rr e n d e r e d t o f

e d e r a l a u th o r i t i e s t o b e g i n s e rv i n g h i s f e d e r a l s e n t e n c e th a td a y. T he B O P l at ercal cul at ed D avi s ’ s fede r al r el eas e dat e. I n doi ng s o, i tdet erm i ned thathi s fede r al s ent ence comm ence d on J anuary21, 2009, w hen he s urr ender ed t o fede r al a u th o rities . It d id n o t g iv e h im c re d it fo r tim e se rv e d b e tw e e n th e d a te h e w a s ta k e n in to fede r al cus t ody( J anuary6, 2006) unt i l the dat e hi s s t at e s ent ence expi r ed ( Sept ember13,1. 1

A c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili tyis n o t re q u ire d to a p p e a l th e d e n ial o f a c h a llen g e to th e e x e c u tio n o f

a s e n te n c e u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . S e e B u rk e yv . M a rb e rr y , 5 5 6 F .3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T h u s , w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 . See V ega v. U ni t ed St at es , 493 F. 3d 310, 313- 14 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e r evi ew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f h ab ea s reli ef d e n o v o an d ex erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er its c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w . S e e id . a t 3 1 4 . 2 0 0 8 ), b e c a u se it d e e m e d h im to re m a in in p rim a rysta te c u sto d yd u rin g th a t ti m e . It d id g iv e h im c re d it fro m th e e x p ira tio n o f h is s tate se n ten c e to th e d a te h e su rre n d e re d to fede r al author i t i es t o begi n hi s fede r al s ent ence . D avi s , now i ncar cer at ed w i thi n the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, fi l ed a § 2241 habea s pet i t i on as s ert i ng thatthe B O P shoul d have gi ven hi m cr edi tforthe ea r l i erper i od as w el l . A M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdenythe pet i t i on, w hich i tdid byorder ent ered Jul y6, 20 10 . D avis app eal s. 1 II. T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatD avi s i s notent i t l ed t o cr edi tagai ns thi s fede r al se n ten c e f

ro m th e tim e h e w a s ta k e n in to tem p o ra ryf e d e ra l cu sto d yu n til th e tim e h is sta te s e n ten c e e x p ire d b e c a u se th a t ti m e a lre a d yh a s b e e n c re d ited a g a in st h is s tate s ent ence ( thus r es ul t i ng i n i t s expi r at i on) . Forthe r eas ons adequa t el yexpl ai ned bythe M agi s tr at e J udge and D i s tr i ctC our t , w e agr ee. See 18 U . S. C . § 3585( b) ( perm i t t i ng credi ton l yfor t i m e served “that has not been credi t ed ag ai nstano ther sent ence” ); see al so V ega, 493 F. 3d at314 ( § 3585( b) does notperm i t“doubl e cr edi t ” t ow ar d s t at e and f eder al sen tenc e); R ios v . W il ey , 2 0 1 F . 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 7 1 -73 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (sam e), sup erse d ed in p art bys t atut e on othergr ounds as s t at ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. Sai ntvi l l e, 218 F. 3d 246, 249 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).D avi s does notdi r ect l ycont es tthatthe fi r s tpor t i on of hi s fede r al cus t odyw as

count ed t ow ar d hi s s t at e s ent ence . I ns t ead, he ar gues thatthe St at e of M ary l and r el i nqui s hed i t s j ur i s di ct i on overhi m w hen i ts urr ender ed hi m t o fede r al author i t i es p u rsu a n t to th e w rit ad p ro se q u e n d u m a n d th a t h e sh o u ld b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n in excl us i ve fe der al cus t odys i nce thatdat e. T aki ng hi s ar gum entone s t ep fa r therthan he does , thatw oul d m ean e i therthatthe St at e of M ary l and expe ct s hi m t o s erve the re m a in d e r o f

h is s tate se n ten c e a f

terh is re lea se f

ro m f e d e ra l cu sto d y(w h ich w o u ld re su lt i n th e s a me p e r i o d o f

i n c a r c e r a t i o n h e n o w f a c e s ) o rth a ti te f

f e c t i v e l yp a r d o n e d h i m. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d . A sta te p riso n e r tra n sf e rre d to f e d e ra l cu sto d yu n d e r a w rit ad pr os equendum t o ans w erfede r al char ges i s cons i der ed “on l oan” t o fede r al author i t i es and r emai ns i n pr i m arycus t odyof the s t at e “unl es s and unt i l the fi r s ts over ei gn reli n q u ishe s jurisdicti o n . ” R u g g iano v . R eish , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), superseded in parton othergroun ds byU . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3 A pp . N ote 3( E ) ( 20 03 ); R i os, 201 F. 3d at274. “G ener al l y , a s over ei gn can onl yr el i nqui s h pr i m aryj ur i s di ct i on i n one of fourw ay s : ( 1) r el eas e on bai l ; ( 2) di s m i s s al of cha r ges ; ( 3) par ol e; or( 4) expi r at i on of sen tenc e.” U n it ed S tat es v . C o le, 4 1 6 F . 3 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 7 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). D avi s does notar gue thathi s s ent ence had expi r ed orthatthe St at e of M ary l and di d anyof thes e thi ngs w hen i tr el eas ed hi m i nt o t empora ryfede r al cus t ody . I ns t ead, he ar gues thatthe St at e of M ary l and’ s i nt entt o r el i nqui s h j ur i s di ct i on can be gl eane d fr om fourfac t or s . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe fe der al part i es “under s t ood” thatthe J anuary6, 2006 det ent i on or derpl ace d hi m i n pr i m aryfede r al cus t ody . Second, he ar gues thatM ary l and D i s tr i ctC our tr emanded hi m t o the cus t odyof the B O P r atherthan the St at e of M ary l andaft eri ti m pos ed hi s fede r al s ent ence . T hi r d, he ar gues thatfede r al author i t i es never

pl ace d a det ai neron hi m befor e err oneous l ytr ans ferr i ng hi m back t o the cus t odyof the St at e of M ary l and. Fi nal l y , he ar gues thatthe St at e of M ary l and di d notcont actfede r al a u th o ri tie s b e f

o re re le a s in g h im a f

te r d e te rm in in g th a t h is s ta te s e n te n c e h a d e x p ir e d . N o n e o f th e se f a c to rs s u g g e sts th a t th e S tate o f M a ry lan d in ten d e d to re lin q u ish its j ur i s di ct i on befor e D avi s ’ s s ent ence expi r ed. I ns t ead, the onl yconcl us i on perm i t t ed by the r ecor d i s thatthe St at e of M ary l and’ s j ur i s di ct i on beca m e ext i ngui s hed byoper at i on of l aw on Sept ember13, 2008, w hen hi s s t at e s ent ence expi r ed. See C ol e, 416 F. 3d at 897. T he B O P pr oper l ycr edi t ed al l of hi s cus t odyaft erthatdat e aga i ns thi s fede r al s ent ence , and he i s ent i t l ed t o nothi ng m or e. See R uggi ano, 307 F. 3d at125 n. 1 ( “Forthe p u rp o se s o f

c o m p u tin g [ a d e f

e n d a n t’s] s e n ten c e . . . the tim e sp e n t in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to a w ri t ad p rose q u en d u m is cred it ed tow ard h is st ate se n tenc e, no t his fed era l sen tenc e.”). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.