# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals
For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604
Submi tte d November 14, 2013 * Deci ded November 15, 2013

Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Ju dge JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge JOHN DANIEL TIND ER, Circ uit Judge No. 13-2117
UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
ROBERT DAWSO N, Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Nort hern Di stric t of Indiana, For t Wayne Divi si on.
No. 1:07-CR-75-TLS Theresa L. Springmann , Judge

. O R D E R
Rober t Dawson, a federal pr i soner, appeals from the deni al of hi s moti on requestin g credit for time he s pent i n federal detention before he start ed hi s federal NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After exami ning the par ties ’ brief s and the record, we have concluded that or al * arg ument i s unnecess ary . Thus, the appeal i s submi tte d on the briefsand the recor d. See F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 34(a)( 2)(C).No. 13-2117 Page 2

sentence and for tim e he already ser ved in s tate pris on. Becaus e the dis tr i ct court
corr ectly dete rmi ned that it lacked authority to gr ant Daws on’s request, we affi rm.
After Indi ana authoriti es arreste d Daw son in 2006 for r ape and battery , he pleaded gui lty t o batt ery . Whi le he awai ted sentencing for t he state offense, the federal gov ernment charged himwi th armed r obbery and aiding and abetting an offen se again st the United Stat es. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d); 2(a) . The di stric t courti ssu ed a wri t of habeas corpus prosequendu m, order i ng Indi ana authoriti es to pr oduce Daw son for his federal pro secu tion. Once in federal court, Dawson pleaded gui lty in November 2007 to ar med bank robbery . Under t he ter ms of hi s plea agreement, Dawson agreed t o “wai ve my r i ght t o appeal or contest my convicti on and my sentence . . . or the manner i n whi ch m y convicti on or my sentence . . . was deter mined or imposed.” The court sentenced D awson to the custody o f the Bureau of Pri sons f or “112 months” in a “federal faci li ty.”

Daws on’s service of hi s federal sentence w as delayed. After feder al sentencing, he ret urned to stat e court where he was sentenced to thre e year s’ i mpri sonment on the batter y charge. He completed his state sentence on Febr uary 25, 2010, and was then tr ansferr ed to t he Bureau of Pri sons to beginserving hi s federal sentence. Onc e i n federal pris on, Daws on asked the Bureau to credi t hi m three y ears on hi s federal sentence for the time he s pent i n state prison s erv ing hi s state sentence. Th e Bureau sought in put from the dis tr i ct court about Dawson’s request, and i t r ecommended that the Bureau deny Dawson’s request. Th e court ex plained that it had intended for Daws on to serve his federal sentence after any stat e sentence. Th e Bureau deni ed Daws on’s request, and as far as the recor d shows, Daws on di d not admi ni strat i vely appeal the deni al.

Mor e than four ye ars after he asked t he Bureau to g i ve himthe credit, Daw son moved t he federal sentencing judge to cor rect his federal sentence to r eflect credi t for tim e serve d. Repeating hi s ass ert i on to the Bureau, he arg ued that the dis tr i ct court i ntended hi m to serv e hi s federal sentence at the state faci li ty, so he should receive credi t for hi s ti me there. He also added thatthe di stric t courthad ruled that it would credi t hi m for the t i me he spen t infederal detent i on before his sentence for the federal cri me. The di stric t courtdeni ed Daws on’s motion, reasoni ng that it had not or dered Daws on’s federal sentence to r un c oncurrent t o hi s state sentence. Th e court also admoni shed D awson that requests for credit for t i me served must be exhausted at the Bureau. Only after Daws on fully exhausts hi s remedi es wi th the Bureau, the cour t conti nued, may he s eek j udi ci al rev i ew of the computati on.No. 13-2117 Page 3

On appeal Daws on mai ntai ns that the di stric t courtshould c or rect his sentence to credi t hi m for hi s pre-sentencing time in federal detention or for tim e serve d on hi s state sentence bef or e he began serving hi s federal sentence, or both. The go ver nment counters wi th the t hreshold arg ument that Daws on’s appeal wai ver bars thi s appeal. But a motion ass ert i ng that a defendant was depri ved o f credi ts towar ds hi s sen tence challen ges the ex ecuti on of the sentence, not its i mposi tion. Valona v. United States , 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998). And D awson w ai ved his right to appeal o nly the latt er. Thus Daws on’s challen ge doe s not fall wi thin the scope of the appeal wai ver
. Nonetheless, the di stric t courtcorr ectly r ejecte d Daw son’s moti on. First we address Daw son’s argument that he should receive credi t for the time he s erv ed i n federal detent i on before his federal sentence. The Attor ney General, thr ough the Bureau, has the sole authority to award credi t for tim e serve d in federal detention before t he start o f the sentence. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3585(b), 3621(b); United S tat es v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 334–35 (1992); United S tat es v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1417 (7th Cir. 1992). Bef or e challen gin g the Bure au’s dec i si on i n federal court, Dawson mu st fi rst ex haus t hi s admini strat i ve r emedi es, inclu di ng an admini strat i ve appeal, before the Bureau. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10, 542.13–.15; Wilson , 503 U.S. at 335. He has n ot do ne so. Only after he has exhaus ted tho se remedi es may Daw son seek rev i ew from a di stric t court, by fi ling a petiti on under 28 U.S .C. § 2241. See Koller, 956 F.2d at 1417. Ev en then, the petiti on must be fi led in the di stric t where Dawson i s incarcerated, ag ai nst the warden of hi s pri son. See al-M arri v. Rum sfeld, 360 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir. 2004); Samirah v. O’Conn ell , 335 F.3d 545, 551 (7th Ci r. 2003); United S tat es v. Mittelsteadt , 790 F.2d 39, 40 (7th Cir. 1986). Becaus e Daws on i s cu rr ently inc arcerat ed i n Atwater , Cali fornia, after he exhausts he may fi le a petiti on under 28 U.S .C. § 2241 only ag ai nst the warden of hi s pri son in the appropr i ate federal dis tr i ct court in Cali fornia.

For si mi lar r easons, the di stric t courtcorr ectly r ejecte d Daw son’s argument that the courti ntended hi m to serv e hi s federal sentence at the state pr i son, and s o he should receive federal credi t for hi s state sentence. Ju st as wi th crediting a pris oner fo r pr esentencing time s erv ed, the Bureau has the sole authority to desi gnate t he place of i mpri sonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). And agai n Daw son has n ot e xhausted hi s admini strat i ve r emedi es to challenge the Bureau’s desi gnation that he serv e hi s federal sentence at a federal faci li ty. M or eov er, t he Bureau’s desi gnation also respects the sentencing court’ s judgment that Dawson serve hissentence at a “federal faci li ty.”
Accordi ngly, we AFFIRM the j udgment of the dis tr i ct court.