FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 94 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 17 70 -UU RANDY SCRUGGS, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, vers us KENNY A DKINSON, W ard en , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ran dy Scrug gs , a pr o s e fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l

of hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1. Sc ru gg s ar gu es (1 ) th athe sh ou ldha ve be enbro ug htin to fed eral co urt wh il e h e was inst at e cu st od y so th athe co ul d re so lv e h is supe rv is edrel eas e v io la ti on , and(2) th athe sh ou ldha ve rece iv edcred itfor ti m e se rv edwhi le he was i n p re-t ria l d et en ti on in st at e co urt. Aft er a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . I. Scru gg s fi rs t ar gu es th athe sh ou ldha ve be enbro ug htin to fed eral co urt whi le he was i n s ta te cu st od y so th athe co ul d re so lv e h is supe rv is edrel eas e vi ol at io n. “

Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s ta nd ardth anpl ead in gs dr aft edby atto rn ey s an d wi ll , th eref or e, be li be ral ly con st ru ed ,” Tan ne nb au m v. Uni te d S ta te s, 1 48 F.3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), bu t “ we ne ve rth el es s h av e requi redth em

to co nf orm to pro cedur al rul es ,” Mo to n v . Cowa rt, -- - F.3 d -- --, No. 09 -1 17 30 , 20 11 WL 31 07 62 , at * 2 n .2 (1 1t h C ir. Fe b. 2 , 20 11 ). “ [W] e h av e rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t an is su e n otrai se d i n t he di st ric t co urt an d ra is edforth e fi rs t ti m e in anap pe al wil l n otbe co ns id eredby thi s co urt.” Walk er v . Jo ne s, 1 0 F .3d 15 69 , 15 72 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) .

2Inhi s § 22 41 pe ti ti on , Scru gg s m en ti on edon ly onc e, inhi s s ta te m en t o f th e

pr oc edur al hi st ory , th athe was n otbro ug htin to fed eral co urt wh il e h e was inst at e cu st od y . He di d n otm ak e an y arg um en t b as edon th atall eg at io n i n h is pe ti ti on , no r di d h e m en ti on th e al le ga ti on inhi s m em or an du m of l aw in supp ort o f th e pe ti ti on or i n h is ob

jecti on to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on . On t he se fact s, we co nc lu de th atScru gg s fa il edto rai se th is is su e b efo re the di st ric t co urt, an d we wi ll th eref or e n otco ns id er i t fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th is ap pe al . See S m it h v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rrs ., 57 2 F .3d13 27 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ref us in g t o c on si de r anarg um en t ad va nc edon ap pe al by a hab eas pe ti ti on er u nd er 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 b ecau se th e p et it io ne r ha d n otfai rly pres en te d t he arg um en t t o th e d is tri ctco urt wh ere t he pe ti ti on er m en ti on edth e arg um en t i n o nl y on e se nt en ce in hi s 1 16 -p ag e p et it io n a ndha d n otall ud edto th e arg um en t atall inhi s 1 23 -p ag e m em or an du m

of l aw in supp ort o f th e p et it io n) . II. Scru gg s n ex t ar gu es th athe sh ou ldha ve rece iv edcred itforti m e se rv ed whi le he was i n p re-tria l d et en ti on inst at e co urt. Sec ti on 35 85 (b ) of Tit le 18 pr ov id es th at“ [a] defe nd an t s ha ll be gi ve n c red itto wardth e se rv ic e o f a t erm of im pr is on m en t fo r an y

ti m e h e h as sp en t i n o ffi ci al de te nt io n p rio r to th e d at e th e se nt en ce co m

m en ces . . . th atha s n otbe encred it edag ai ns t an ot he r se nt en ce.” 1 8 3U.S.C. § 3 58 5( b) . The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ § 3 58 5( b) do es no t

au th or iz e a d is tri ctco urt t o c om pu te th e cre di t atsen te nc in g.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il so n, 5 03 U.S. 32 9, 3 34 , 11 2 S . Ct. 1 35 1, 1 35 4 (1 99 2) . Ins te ad , “ [a]ftera di st ric t co urt s en te nc es a fed eral off en de r, th e Att orne y

Gene ral , th ro ug h t he [Bu reauof P ris on s (“ BOP”) ], ha s t he res po ns ib il it y foradm in is te rin g t he se nt en ce,” a ndm

us t “ m ak e th e d et erm in at io n [o f an y ap pl ic ab le cred it s] as a n adm in is tra ti ve m atte r whe n i m pr is on in g t he de fen da nt .” Id . at 3 35 , 11 2 S . Ct. at 13 55 . “ Fed eral reg ul at io ns . . . affo rd [] pri so ne rs adm in is tra ti ve rev ie w of t he co m pu ta ti on of t he ir c red it s, an d p ris on ers [are ] ab le to see k ju di ci al rev ie w of th es e co m

pu ta ti on s af

te r ex haus ti ng th ei r adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s.” Id . (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; s ee 2 8 C .F.R. § 5 42 .10 (a) (“ The pu rp os e o f th e Adm in is tra ti ve Rem edy Pro gr am is to all ow an in m at e to see k fo rm al rev ie w of a n i ss ue rel at in g t o any as pe ctof h is /h er o wn co nf in em en t.”) . Scru gg s s ou gh t a p rio r cu st od y cred itfora pe rio d o f ap pr ox im at el y ten m on th s dur in g wh ic h h e was in st at e cu st od y fol lo win g h is arre stby stat e au th or it ie s an d b efo re h is st at e co urt s en te nc in g. Th e BOP d idno t g iv e Scrug gs a pr io r cu st od y

cred itforth is ti m e p eri odbe cau se itha d a lre ady be encred it ed to ward s Sc ru gg s’s s ta te sen te nc e. Scru gg s ar gu es th atbe cau se he was i n s ta te cu st od y du rin g t hi s t im e p eri odas ares ul t o f a fed eral de ta in er h e sh ou ldbe 4“ co ns id eredto be inSta te as we ll as f ed eral . . . cu st ody

forall actua l [a nd ] le ga l pu rp os es .” W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f a st atut e. Dawso n v . Sco tt , 50 F.3d88 4, 8 86 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). If th e st atut e is adm in is te redby an ag en cy an d t he “ co ng res si on al pu rp os e is cle ar, the n [we ] ‘m us t g iv e eff

ectto th e u na m

bi gu ou sl y expr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s.’” Id. (quo ti ng Ch ev ro n, U.S.A., Inc . v. Nat ’l Res . Def. Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 2– 43 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 77 8, 2 78 1 (1 98 4) ). Bu t i f “ ‘the st atut e is si le ntor a m bi gu ou s with re sp ectto th e sp eci fic is su e,’ . . . a revi ewin g c ou rt . . . ‘ m ay no t s ub st itut e it s own co ns tru ct io n o f a s ta tu to ry pro vi si on fora reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n’ by an adm in is te rin g a ge nc y .” Id . at 8 86 –8 7 (quo ti ng Ch ev ro n, 4 67 U.S. at 8 43 –4 4, 1 04 S. Ct . at 2 78 2) . Bo th th is Co urt an d t he Supr em e Co urt h av e rec og ni zedth atCo ng res s’s

“ actua l p ur

po se in alt eri ng [§ 3 58 5’s p red eces so r st atut e] was to m ak e cl ear tha t a de fen da ntco ul d n otrece iv e a d oubl e cre di t fo r hi s d et en ti on ti m e.” Daws on , 50 F.3 d a t 8 88 n.4 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee Wils on , 50 3 U.S. at33 7, 1 12 S. Ct. at13 56 . Befo re the di st ric t co urt, Sc ru gg s as se rte d t ha t h is st at e co urt s en te nc e was no t “ an ot he r se nt en ce” wi th in th e m ean in g o f § 3 58 5( b) , bu t h e o ffer edno arg um en t an d c it edno auth or it y to supp ort thi s co nt en ti on . ButBOP Pro gr am

5St at em en t No . 58 80 .28 , Sen te nc e Co m pu ta ti on Manua l (C CCA o f 19 84 ) (Sep t. 2 0, 19 99 ), in di cat es th atth e BOP h as in te rp ret edth e p hr as e “ an ot he r se nt en ce” i n § 3 58 3( b) to in cl ud e se nt en ces im po se d und er s ta te law. See Ren o v . Kora y , 51 5 U.S. 50 , 61 , 11 5 S . Ct. 2 02 1, 2 02 7 (1 99 5) (“ BOP’s in te rn al ag en cy gu id el in e, whi chis ak in to anin te rp ret iv e ru le th atdo es no t re qu ire no ti ce an d c omm en t i s st il l en ti tl edto so m e d efer en ce . . . .” (cit at io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). PS 1 58 80 .28 st at es in pe rti ne ntpa rt t ha t “ [c]red itwil l b e g iv enforti m e sp en t i n o ffi ci al de te nt io n a s a d ire ctres ul t o f th e fed eral off en se forwhi ch th e fed eral sen te nc e was im po se d” or “ as th e res ul t o f an y fed eral , st at e o r fo rei gn arre stwhi ch is no t rel at edto , y etoc cu rredon or a fte r th e d at e o f th e fed eral off en se . . . ; p ro vi de d i t ha s n otbe encred it edag ai ns t an ot he r se nt en ce,” a ndth at“ cred itwil l n otbe gi ve n fo r an y po rti on of t im e sp en t s erv in g a no th er s en te nc e reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s fe de ral , st at e, or for ei gn .” PS 5 88 0.2 8, at1-1 6, 1 -1 7, 1 -2 1.

Whil e Kor ay

only stated that “some de fer ence ” wa s owed, the opinion cited to a nd 1 quoted from Chevr on in support of its conclusion that defe renc e wa s owed to the B OP’s interpre tation of § 3585(b) c ontained in PS 5880.28 so l ongas that interpr etation is a “per missibl e construc tion of the statute.” Kor ay , 515 U.S. at 61, 115 S. Ct . at 2027. As such, the analy sis set forth in Chevron applies to this case . See United States v. Mea d Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226–27, 121 S. Ct . 2164, 2171 (2001) ( holding “ that administrative implementation of a particula r statutory

provision qualifies for Che vron def ere nce when it appea

rs that Cong ress deleg ated a

uthority to the ag ency

g ener ally to make rule s car

ry ing the forc e of la

w, and that the ag ency interpre tation claiming de fer ence was promulg ated in the e x erc ise of that authority”). 6Bec au se th e la ng ua ge of § 35 85 (b ) is cle ar, we m us t g iv e eff

ectto th e un am bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d i nt en t o f Co ng res s t o p rev en t a d efen da ntfro m rece iv in g apri orcu st od y cred itforti m e th atha s b een cred it edag ai ns t an ot he r se nt en ce. See Dawso n, 5 0 F .3dat 8 86 . The t im e Scrug gs serve d dur in g h is st at e co urt p re-t ria l d et en ti on was c red it edto ward s h is st at e se nt en ce, an d t he refo re can no t al so be cred it edto ward s h is fed eral sen te nc e. See Un it edSta te s v . Lab ei ll e-So to , 16 3 F .3d93 , 99 (2dCir . 19 98 ) (h ol di ng th atun de r § 3 58 5( b) , “ a de fen da ntha s n o ri gh t t o c red iton hi s fe de ral sen te nc e fo r ti m e th atha s b een cred it edag ai ns t h is pri orst at e se nt en ce”) . Mor eo ve r, ev enass um in g ar gu en do th at§ 3 58 5( b) is “ si le ntor a m bi gu ou s” as t o wh ethe r a s ta te sen te nc e qua li fie s as

“ an ot he r se nt en ce,” t he BOP’s co ns tru ct io n o f th e st atut e is reas on ab le th eref or e en ti tl edto de fere nc e. See Daws on , 50 F.3dat 8 86 –8 7. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Scru gg s’s § 22 41 pe ti ti on . AFFIRMED.

7