Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181212_0002576.C04.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 04:48:12
Document Index: 24358301

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 3621', '§ 3621', '§ 3621', '§ 3621', '§ 3584', '§ 3584']

FindACase™ | Mangum v. Hallembaek
ANTHONY WAYNE MANGUM, Petitioner - Appellant,
WARDEN S. HALLEMBAEK, Respondent - Appellee, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-hc-02227-FL)
Amanda Lineberry, Kendall Burchard, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Michael Bredenburg, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Stephen L. Braga, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF L A W, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Robert J. Higdon, United States Attorney, Joshua Royster, Chief, Civil Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Anthony Wayne Mangum appeals the district court's denial of his motion to compel the federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to comply with this Court's mandate in Mangum v. Hallembaek, 824 F.3d 98 (4th Cir. 2016). In that case, Mangum had appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his federal sentence. Specifically, Mangum's petition challenged the refusal of the BOP to designate nunc pro tunc a state facility for service of his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See Mangum, 824 F.3d at 99. This designation would have effectively run Mangum's federal and state sentences concurrently rather than consecutively, allowing him to credit the time he spent in state prison serving his state sentence toward the previously imposed federal sentence that he had not yet served.
This Court agreed with Mangum and held that the BOP abused its discretion in denying his request for nunc pro tunc designation under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). We therefore vacated in part the district court's judgment and instructed the court on remand to return the matter to the BOP so that the agency could consider Mangum's request again, this time in a manner consistent with the views expressed in this Court's opinion. See Mangum, 824 F.3d at 103. On remand, the BOP denied Mangum's request for a second time in a decision that contradicts this Court's mandate in Mangum. Because the BOP failed to comply with our mandate, we reverse the district court's denial of Mangum's motion to compel compliance and remand this matter once again. The district court on remand shall enter an order directing the BOP to reconsider Mangum's request for nunc pro tunc designation in light of this opinion.
In February 2006, Mangum was indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in the Middle District of North Carolina. Mangum, 824 F.3d at 99. A few months later, in June 2006, Oklahoma state authorities arrested Mangum and charged him with felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, misdemeanor possession of a fictitious driver's license, misdemeanor resisting an officer, and misdemeanor obstructing an officer. Id. In August, a federal magistrate judge requested that Oklahoma transfer Mangum to federal custody for his North Carolina proceedings. Id. at 100. Mangum ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 262 months' imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. Id. During sentencing, the district court did not state whether the federal sentence was to be served concurrently with or consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment that might result if Mangum were convicted of other offenses in a separate proceeding. Id.
After the federal proceedings, Mangum was returned to Oklahoma custody in October 2007. He pleaded guilty to the four state charges and was sentenced concurrently to terms of ten years on count one, seven years on count two, and one year each for counts three and four. Id. The state court specifically ordered that the state sentences run concurrently with the previously imposed federal sentence. Id.
Mangum remained in Oklahoma custody while serving his state sentences. He was paroled to a federal detainer on January 13, 2011, and the BOP, in preparing a sentence computation for Mangum, determined that his service of the federal sentence began on this date. Id.
On January 3, 2013, Mangum requested that the BOP consider whether to designate nunc pro tunc the Oklahoma prison where he served his state sentence as the place for service of his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).[1] Mangum, 824 F.3d at 100. The fourth statutory factor the BOP considers in this analysis is "any statement by the court that imposed the sentence." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4). The BOP thus attempted to contact Mangum's federal sentencing court to inquire whether the court intended to treat the federal sentence as concurrent with or consecutive to the subsequently imposed state sentence. Mangum, 824 F.3d at 100. The court never responded to this inquiry, however, and the BOP went on to deny Mangum's nunc pro tunc request after considering the other statutory factors. Id. at 100-01. In declining to grant this request, the BOP invoked the fourth factor and reasoned that "the federal Judgment was silent on whether your sentence should run consecutively or concurrently to any other sentence. Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), 'Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.'" Id. at 101 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)).
The BOP's refusal to grant nunc pro tunc relief, along with its sentencing computation, "effectively determined that the previously imposed federal sentence would be served consecutively to the later imposed state sentence," even though "the clearly expressed intent of the state sentencing court [was] that its sentence be served concurrently with the federal sentence." Id. Because of the BOP's decision, Mangum's release date would be on or about January 14, 2030, rather than June 15, 2025.
On October 24, 2013, Mangum filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of North Carolina, seeking credit against his federal sentence for the time he spent serving his state sentence from June 14, 2006, to January 13, 2011. Id. The district court granted the warden's motion for summary judgment, and Mangum appealed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On May 25, 2016, this Court vacated in part the district court&#39;s judgment because it had "overlooked a two-pronged flaw in the BOP&#39;s exercise of its broad discretion" in denying Mangum&#39;s requested nunc ...