[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14069

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00445-WTH-PRL

DONALD EUGENE WILSON, JR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 4, 2016)

Before HULL, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-14069 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Donald Eugene Wilson, Jr. is a pro se prisoner serving concurrent state and 

federal prison sentences at Blackwater River Correctional Facility in Florida. 

Wilson appeals the district court’s ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. After 

review, we remand this case to the district court for further consideration and 

clarification of its ruling. 

Wilson’s § 2241 petition argued that his federal criminal judgment, as being 

carried out by the federal Bureau of Prisons in its calculation of his projected 

release date, is inconsistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of his 

federal sentences. At the time of Wilson’s original federal sentencing, he was 

serving a 30-year state sentence and had already served over two years on that 

sentence. Part of Wilson’s offense conduct in state court was considered as part of 

the relevant conduct in federal court. The district court agreed with Wilson (1) that 

a total 40-year sentence was appropriate (30 years for the state offenses and 10 

years for the federal offenses), and (2) that Wilson’s federal sentences should be 

structured so that Wilson would serve only an additional 10-year prison term on 

top of the 30-year state prison term he was already serving. 

To that end, the district court orally imposed a 360-month sentence on Count 

One and a 120-month sentence on Count Three, to run concurrently to each other 

and to “the unexpired term of the State sentence that [Wilson] is presently 

serving,” and a 120-month sentence on Count Four, to run consecutively to the 

Case: 14-14069 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
3

sentences on Counts One and Three and to “the unexpired term of the State 

sentence that [Wilson] is presently serving.” This oral pronouncement and 

structure reflected an intent to give Wilson credit for the time he spent in state 

custody before his federal sentencing, consistent with U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(1) and 

United States v. Descally, 254 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2001). The Bureau of Prisons, 

however, was calculating Wilson’s projected release date on his federal sentence 

without any credit for the state time. 

Notably, in Wilson’s prior Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 

proceeding to correct a clerical error, the district court stated in a show cause order 

that its intended sentence had not been “carried into effect” and proposed that it 

“enter a corrected amended judgment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(1) stating 

[Wilson’s] sentence as to Count One of the indictment to be a term of 327 months 

and 17 days (a reduction of 32 months and 13 days from the sentence of 360 

months) to be served concurrently with the undischarged term of [his] state court 

sentence.” This would reduce the 360-month (30-year) federal sentence on Count 

One by the amount of time Wilson had served on his 30-year state sentence at the 

time of the district court’s oral pronouncement of the federal sentence.

The government at that time responded that the proposed remedy was 

“appropriate.” But Wilson had filed only a Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical 

error, and this correction was a substantive amendment that could not be achieved 

Case: 14-14069 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
4

by a Rule 36 motion. See United States v. Wilson, 528 F. App’x 967, 968 (11th 

Cir. 2013). 

Wilson’s § 2241 petition now asks the district court to enter “a corrected 

amended judgment” to accomplish the district court’s intended sentence by 

“grant[ing] [a] 42 month reduction for count one.” In response, the government

agreed and asked the district court to “grant the petitioner’s motion.” Specifically, 

the government pointed out that, at Wilson’s federal sentencing, the district court 

had “intended to sentence the petitioner in such a way that he should serve a tenyear sentence of incarceration after the petitioner completed his state sentence.” 

The government, however, mischaracterized the relief Wilson’s § 2241 petition 

sought, stating that Wilson’s “Judgment listed the wrong offense date for Count 

One,” and that Wilson was seeking “to correct the date in the Judgment so that the 

Bureau of Prisons will appropriately calculate his sentence.” The district court 

actually granted the instant § 2241 petition “to the extent that” Wilson’s federal 

criminal judgment was amended so that the “date offense concluded as to Count 

One” was “changed to the date of November 20, 2003, rather than November 20, 

2007.” 

On appeal, Wilson points out that this was not the issue raised or the relief 

requested in his § 2241 petition. The relief that the government said Wilson was 

seeking and that the district court granted appears to correspond to a separate issue 

Case: 14-14069 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
5

raised in Wilson’s 2012 Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical error filed in his 

federal criminal case. But it was not the relief requested in the instant § 2241 

petition.

Moreover, we observe that the district court previously entered the above 

show cause order in Wilson’s federal criminal case finding that the intended 

sentence was not being carried into effect by the Bureau of Prisons and indicating a 

willingness to grant the requested relief. As noted above, in response in the district 

court, the government agreed that the requested relief was appropriate. 

In light of this complicated and confusing history, we exercise our discretion 

and remand this case back to the district court to re-examine Wilson’s § 2241 

petition and the particular relief requested therein. At one time, the parties and the 

court agreed on what was intended in the oral pronouncement and what should be 

done. Maybe they can again. Nothing in this opinion should be read to suggest 

what should happen on remand.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 14-14069 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Page: 5 of 5