Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20091021_0000980.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 09:18:53
Document Index: 680530663

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 1344', '§ 2241', '§ 3585', '§ 0', '§ 3585', '§ 3585']

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed by Petitioner Al Hayy Hasan ("Hasan"), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Schuylkill ("FCI-Schuylkill") in Minersville, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) Hasan is challenging the Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") calculation of his federal sentence. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be denied.
On July 16, 2001, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ("New Jersey District Court") sentenced Hasan to a term of imprisonment of sixty-six (66) months, as amended sixty (60) months, to be followed by a term of supervised release of five (5) years, for bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344. See United States v. Hinton, Crim. No. 1:00-CR-00125, Docs. 107, 137 (D.N.J. July 16, 2001); (Doc. 7-2, Flagg Decl., Attach. A, Public Information Inmate Data, 8.) On April 22, 2004, Hasan was released from federal custody for good conduct time. (Id. at 7.) At that time, he began serving his 5-year term of supervised release. (Id.)
On August 12, 2005, Hasan was arrested in Pennsylvania by Philadelphia Police on new charges of bank fraud. (Id. at 12.) Hasan was released from the custody of the Philadelphia Police Department on that same day. (Doc. 7-2, Flagg Decl., ¶ 6, 4.) On November 4, 2005, Hasan was arrested by the United States Marshals Service ("USMS") in connection with the new bank fraud charges and remained in federal custody. (Doc. 7-2, Flagg Decl., Attach. B, USMS Prisoner Tracking System Report, 20); see also United States v. Hasan, Crim. No. 2:06-CR-00174 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2005).
On November 8, 2007, the New Jersey District Court found Hasan guilty of violating his previously imposed 5-year term of supervised release by committing another offense, revoked the term of supervised release and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of twenty-seven (27) months. (Doc. 7-2, Flagg Decl., Attach. C, J. in Criminal Case, 22-23.) However, the 27-month term expired on that same day because Hasan was released via good conduct time. (Doc. 7-2 at 11.) Specifically, Hasan received credit for August 12, 2005; November 4, 2005 through October 19, 2007; and November 8, 2007. (Id.) Due to the nature of this "time served" sentence, as defined by the BOP, Hasan completed his sentence on October 19, 2007. (Doc. 1 at 11.) However, he remained in federal custody on a detainer for the August 12, 2005 offense. (Id.)
On April 2, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Eastern District Court") sentenced Hasan to a term of imprisonment of sixty (60) months, to be followed by term of supervised release of five (5) years, for a bank fraud conviction resulting from Hasan's 2005 arrest. (Doc. 7-2 at 12-13; see United States v. Hasan, Crim. No. 06-CR-00174.) In addition, Hasan was granted prior custody credit of one hundred and sixty-four (164) days, or from October 20, 2007 through November 7, 2007, and November 9, 2007 through April 1, 2008. (Id.)
Hasan filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 3, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On August 18, 2009, an order to show cause was issued, directing Respondent to respond to the petition. (Doc. 5.) Responsive and reply briefings have been filed, and the matter is now ripe for disposition.
A petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is the proper vehicle for relief "where petitioner challenges the effect of events 'subsequent' to his sentence," Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir. 1976), and where he challenges the execution of his sentence rather than its validity, see United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185-88 (1979); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Thus, Hasan has properly invoked section 2241 to challenge the calculation of his federal sentence by the BOP and has done so in the proper district, where he was imprisoned at the time he filed the petition. Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d Cir. 1990).
The Attorney General is responsible for computing federal sentences for all offenses committed after November 1, 1987, United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-32 (1992); 18 U.S.C. § 3585, and the Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 28 C.F.R. § 0.96 (1992). Computation of a federal sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585, and consists of the following two-step process: (1) a determination of the date on which the federal sentence commences, and (2) consideration of any credit to which petitioner may be entitled. Chambers v. Holland, 920 F. Supp. 618, 621 (M.D. Pa. 1996).
Section 3585(a) provides that a federal sentence commences "on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served." 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). A federal sentence does not begin to run when a defendant is taken into federal custody from state custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir. 2002); Chambers, 920 F. Supp. at 622. This is because the state remains the primary custodian in those circumstances.*fn1 Further, a concurrent sentence commences on the date of its imposition, not on the date of commencement of the prior sentence or some earlier date. See Shelvy v. Whitfield, 718 F.2d 441, 444 (D.C. Cir. 1983).