1

 Robinson provided the Court with a letter dated May 6, 2010, in support of his motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 09-00126-KD

)

PATRICK LEON ROBINSON, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the motion to correct custody credit filed by defendant

Patrick Leon Robinson (doc. 149).1

 Robinson brings his motion pursuant to Rule 36 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and argues that this Court should correct the Bureau of Prisons

(BOP) calculation of the amount of credit he should receive against his ten (10) month sentence. 

According to Robinson’s calculation, he is due a credit of 149 days for time spent in custody

before he was sentenced by this Court. Robinson argues that the BOP erred by giving him only

eighteen (18) days credit. Robinson moves the Court to accept his recalculation credit and order

the BOP to give him credit for 149 days.

Upon consideration, Robinson’s motion is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. The Bureau

of Prisons, not this Court, “is authorized to compute sentence credit awards after sentencing.”

United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 987, 990 (11th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Wilson,

503 U.S. 329, 333-335, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 1354-1355 (1992)); Galloway v. Fisher, 2008 WL

4057803, 3 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (The federal Attorney General, "acting through the Bureau of

Prisons. . . initially possesses the exclusive authority to determine when a sentence is deemed to

‘commence,' . . . and to compute sentence credit awards after sentencing.") (citation omitted); 

Case 1:09-cr-00126-KD-C Document 157 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 2
see 18 U.S.C. § 3585. 

Thus, “a federal prisoner dissatisfied with computation of his sentence must pursue the

administrative remedy available through the federal prison system before seeking judicial review

of his sentence.” Williams, 425 F.3d at 990 (quoting United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544,

1546 (11th Cir.1989) (interpreting § 3585(b)'s predecessor, § 3568)). "A claim for credit for time

served is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the exhaustion of administrative remedies." Id.

(citing United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1345 (11th Cir.2000). “Exhaustion of

administrative remedies is jurisdictional.” Id. (citing Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211,

212 (11th Cir.1992) (addressing denial of a § 2241 petition)). 

Defendant Robinson’s motion does not indicate that he has exhausted his administrative

remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. Instead, Robinson moves this Court to order the BOP to

change its credit calculation to match his calculation. However, the “federal courts do not have

the authority under § 3585 to order the [Bureau of Prisons] to credit a prisoner with state time

served.” Galloway, 2008 WL 4057803 at *5 (citing United States v. Pineyro, 112 F.3d 43, 45 (2d

Cir.1997)). As previously stated in this Court’s order of April 6, 2010, “calculation of credit for

time served in local custody is within the authority of the Bureau or Prisons.” (doc. 148).

Because “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional” Williams, 425 F.3d at 990

(citation omitted), this Court lacks jurisdiction over Robinson’s request. 

DONE and ORDERED this June 10, 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cr-00126-KD-C Document 157 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2