Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 3:01cr90/RV/MD

 

KENNETH W. SINKFIELD

__________________________________/

ORDER

Pending is a motion filed by the defendant, entitled “Request to Remand into

Custody of Bureau of Federal Prisons” (doc. 83). The government has filed a

response in opposition. Before considering the defendant’s motion, I must set forth

the background of this case.

I. Background

The defendant was charged in a one-count indictment with possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections

922(g), 924(a)(2), and 924(e). The case proceeded to trial in October 2001, after

which the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Sentencing was scheduled

for December 14, 2001. During this time period, the defendant was in federal court

on a writ from state custody. The state custody was based on charges arising from

the same incident that gave rise to the federal charge. Prior to sentencing, the

defendant, through his attorney, wrote to the court and made several objections,

corrections and comments to his pre-sentence report. In relevant part, this letter

stated:

Regarding the running of the sentence, I will ask the court

to order that the sentence start immediately or

recommend that it be served in a state facility if

necessary. Mr. Sinkfield was brought to federal court on

a writ and will be returned to state custody to face the

pending charges arising from the same incident. . . . If the

federal court does not order the sentence to start

immediately, it will not start until the state releases him.

Case 3:01-cr-00090-RV-MD Document 85 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

And at the sentencing hearing, defense counsel (with the defendant at his side)

again stated:

I also ask the court to order the sentence start

immediately or at least designate it to a state facility. I

don’t know what’s gonna happen with his pending state

charges. But he’s on a writ, so he will have to go back to

the state and have to deal with those. This court will

have to address that. If this sentence is to start

immediately, the court would have to indicate that in the

judgment. And I would ask the court to do that.

The defendant was thereafter sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 262 months,

followed by 5 years of supervised release. He was remanded to the federal custody

of the United States Marshal, and it was recommended to the Bureau of Prisons

that the defendant participate in a Residential Drug Treatment Program. Although I

agreed with the defendant’s attorney that designation to a state facility would be

appropriate, there was no mention in the final written judgment of the sentence

starting immediately after imposition, nor was there any recommendation that the

defendant serve his federal sentence in a state facility. Apparently, I then believed

(as did the prosecutor) that the state would not pursue the state charge.

Months later, the defendant, through his attorney, filed a motion again

asking that his sentence “begin when it was imposed and/or that he be designated

to the Florida Department of Corrections for the service of the sentence“ (doc. 40).

The defendant indicated in the motion that after he received his federal sentence,

he was sentenced in state court to a 20-year term of imprisonment with that

sentence to run concurrent with the federal sentence. However, because he was in

state custody, he argued that “the BOP will not consider the federal sentence to

have started unless this court makes the recommendation(s) requested in this

motion.” This motion was unopposed by the government. Thereafter, I entered an

order granting the motion and recommending “that the BOP designate a State of

Florida institution for service of the sentence,” (doc. 41), which it did.

Now, several years later, the defendant moves to be “remanded” back to the

Case 3:01-cr-00090-RV-MD Document 85 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

1

Relying solely on United States v. Diaz-Clark, 292 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir.

2002), the government argues that even if I were inclined to transfer the defendant

to federal prison, I would be without jurisdiction to do so. I do not agree. In DiazClark, the Court of Appeals was, in its own words, “presented with the specific

question of whether a district court has jurisdiction . . . to reduce a prisoner’s

sentence based upon its conclusion that the sentence it had originally imposed was

erroneous.” Id. at 1311 (emphasis added). The Court there ruled that outside the

time period provided by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a

district court may not modify the term or length of a sentence. Here, by contrast,

the defendant is not asking that I reduce or modify the term of his incarceration;

rather, he is asking that he be allowed to serve his term in federal prison. In fact,

he emphasizes in an “Addition” to his motion for remand that: “It should be noted

Mr. Sinkfield is not asking the courts, B.O.P. etc, etc, to resentence and/or interfere

with his concurrent sentence only to be placed in the Federal prison system for the

reasons set forth, in which under the circumstances would be to the benefit of

parties involved, to allow Mr. Sinkfield the opportunity to program himself, and

rehabilitate himself in a positive manner.” Diaz-Clark, therefore, and the cases cited

in that opinion, would not be relevant here. Nevertheless, the defendant’s request

must be denied for the reasons noted immediately above.

Bureau of Prisons so that he can serve the rest of his time in federal prison. 

II. Discussion

There appear to be several interrelated reasons why the defendant wants to

be transferred to federal prison. He first contends that there are no drug treatment

programs available in the state system, even though this “Honorable Court did

order said treatment.” Similarly, he argues that there are no “life changing classes”

in state prison, such as GED programs, vocational training, job skill training, and

counseling. And lastly, he contends that mental health treatment is non-existent,

and he implies that has a heart condition requiring medical attention that may not

be available in his present institution. Even if it is assumed the foregoing is true

(and there is no evidence that it is), and assuming further that I have the

jurisdiction and power to grant the requested relief, on the facts of this case, I will

not order that the defendant be transferred back to the federal system.1

 The problem with the defendant’s motion is that it glosses over the fact that

he, through his attorney, asked the court on three separate occasions to designate

Case 3:01-cr-00090-RV-MD Document 85 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

2

The defendant claims that because he “was not educated in law and/or the

language of the law,” he did not know that his attorney had requested that he be

sent to state prison to serve his federal term. He thus contends that he “was and

remains totally opposed” to his being incarcerated in the state system. But,

regardless of his unfamiliarity with the law, he was present in the courtroom and

standing next to his attorney when the latter unambiguously requested that the

court designate that the sentence be served in a state facility. Notably, the

defendant did not lodge any objection at that time or for many years later. Nor did

he raise this argument anywhere in his direct appeal or in his subsequent petition

for habeas corpus, even though he claimed there that his lawyer was ineffective for

a variety of reasons. In any event, litigants (even criminal defendants) are generally

bound by the actions and representations of their lawyers. Cf. Link v. Wabash R.R.

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (stating that a

party cannot avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of his attorney; “Any

other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative

litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and

is considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the

attorney.”).

that he serve his federal sentence in state prison.2

 He made these requests because

it inured to his benefit for him to serve his federal term in state prison. Otherwise,

his federal sentence would not run concurrent with his state sentence. In other

words, he would have had to serve his 20 years state sentence in state prison,

only to be released and serve the full 262 months federal sentence in federal

prison. The defendant perhaps does not fully appreciate the consequences of the

relief that he seeks. If he is remanded back to the federal system now, it appears

that he will not receive any credit for his remaining state time, whatever that may

be, and he will be required to serve that time later. In this context, I note that the

defendant should complete his state sentence and be released before the expiration

of his federal sentence and, therefore, it is probable that he will eventually be

transferred back to the federal system anyway. 

Under the particular circumstances of this case, it was my intent that the

defendant’s sentence be served concurrently with his state sentence. The state

court judge apparently had the same intention. I have recommended to the Bureau

Case 3:01-cr-00090-RV-MD Document 85 Filed 07/19/07 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

of Prisons that he be designated to a Florida state prison facility in order to allow

the two sentences to be served concurrently. I also order that his federal sentence

be deemed to start immediately at the time of his sentencing (December 14, 2001)

in order to accomplish this. Beyond this, I am not inclined to grant the requested

relief, assuming arguendo that I have the authority to do so. 

III. Conclusion

The defendant’s motion for remand to federal prison (doc. 83) is DENIED. 

 

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2007.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cr-00090-RV-MD Document 85 Filed 07/19/07 Page 5 of 5