United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 14, 2013*

Decided November 15, 2013

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 13-2117

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROBERT DAWSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

Fort Wayne Division.

No. 1:07-CR-75-TLS

Theresa L. Springmann, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Robert Dawson, a federal prisoner, appeals from the denial of his motion

requesting credit for time he spent in federal detention before he started his federal

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After examining the parties’ briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral *

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 13-2117 Page 2

sentence and for time he already served in state prison. Because the district court

correctly determined that it lacked authority to grant Dawson’s request, we affirm.

After Indiana authorities arrested Dawson in 2006 for rape and battery, he

pleaded guilty to battery. While he awaited sentencing for the state offense, the federal

government charged him with armed robbery and aiding and abetting an offense

against the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d); 2(a). The district court issued a

writ of habeas corpus prosequendum, ordering Indiana authorities to produce Dawson

for his federal prosecution. Once in federal court, Dawson pleaded guilty in November

2007 to armed bank robbery. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Dawson agreed to

“waive my right to appeal or contest my conviction and my sentence . . . or the manner

in which my conviction or my sentence . . . was determined or imposed.” The court

sentenced Dawson to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for “112 months” in a

“federal facility.”

Dawson’s service of his federal sentence was delayed. After federal sentencing,

he returned to state court where he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on the

battery charge. He completed his state sentence on February 25, 2010, and was then

transferred to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his federal sentence. Once in

federal prison, Dawson asked the Bureau to credit him three years on his federal

sentence for the time he spent in state prison serving his state sentence. The Bureau

sought input from the district court about Dawson’s request, and it recommended that

the Bureau deny Dawson’s request. The court explained that it had intended for

Dawson to serve his federal sentence after any state sentence. The Bureau denied

Dawson’s request, and as far as the record shows, Dawson did not administratively

appeal the denial. 

More than four years after he asked the Bureau to give him the credit, Dawson

moved the federal sentencing judge to correct his federal sentence to reflect credit for

time served. Repeating his assertion to the Bureau, he argued that the district court

intended him to serve his federal sentence at the state facility, so he should receive

credit for his time there. He also added that the district court had ruled that it would

credit him for the time he spent in federal detention before his sentence for the federal

crime. The district court denied Dawson’s motion, reasoning that it had not ordered

Dawson’s federal sentence to run concurrent to his state sentence. The court also

admonished Dawson that requests for credit for time served must be exhausted at the

Bureau. Only after Dawson fully exhausts his remedies with the Bureau, the court

continued, may he seek judicial review of the computation.
No. 13-2117 Page 3

On appeal Dawson maintains that the district court should correct his sentence to

credit him for his pre-sentencing time in federal detention or for time served on his state

sentence before he began serving his federal sentence, or both. The government

counters with the threshold argument that Dawson’s appeal waiver bars this appeal.

But a motion asserting that a defendant was deprived of credits towards his sentence

challenges the execution of the sentence, not its imposition. Valona v. United States, 138

F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998). And Dawson waived his right to appeal only the latter.

Thus Dawson’s challenge does not fall within the scope of the appeal waiver.

Nonetheless, the district court correctly rejected Dawson’s motion. First we

address Dawson’s argument that he should receive credit for the time he served in

federal detention before his federal sentence. The Attorney General, through the

Bureau, has the sole authority to award credit for time served in federal detention

before the start of the sentence. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3585(b), 3621(b); United States v. Wilson, 503

U.S. 329, 334–35 (1992); United States v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1417 (7th Cir. 1992). Before

challenging the Bureau’s decision in federal court, Dawson must first exhaust his

administrative remedies, including an administrative appeal, before the Bureau. See 28

C.F.R. §§ 542.10, 542.13–.15; Wilson, 503 U.S. at 335. He has not done so. Only after he

has exhausted those remedies may Dawson seek review from a district court, by filing a

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Koller, 956 F.2d at 1417. Even then, the petition must

be filed in the district where Dawson is incarcerated, against the warden of his prison.

See al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir. 2004); Samirah v. O’Connell, 335 F.3d

545, 551 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Mittelsteadt, 790 F.2d 39, 40 (7th Cir. 1986).

Because Dawson is currently incarcerated in Atwater, California, after he exhausts he

may file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only against the warden of his prison in the

appropriate federal district court in California.

For similar reasons, the district court correctly rejected Dawson’s argument that

the court intended him to serve his federal sentence at the state prison, and so he should

receive federal credit for his state sentence. Just as with crediting a prisoner for presentencing time served, the Bureau has the sole authority to designate the place of

imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). And again Dawson has not exhausted his

administrative remedies to challenge the Bureau’s designation that he serve his federal

sentence at a federal facility. Moreover, the Bureau’s designation also respects the

sentencing court’s judgment that Dawson serve his sentence at a “federal facility.”

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.