Opinion ID: 2781475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Credit on the New Sentence on Gun Charges

Text: Mr. deWilliams also contends that prison authorities incorrectly calculated his credits on the new sentence. These contentions are invalid.
Authorities stated that Mr. deWilliams had begun serving the new sentence on December 24, 2001. Thus, according to authorities, Mr. deWilliams could not 2 Jones is persuasive, but not precedential. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 4 earn credit on the new sentence until December 24, 2001. Mr. deWilliams contends that he began serving the new sentence before December 24, 2001. He is mistaken. The new sentence was imposed on August 31, 2000. But, the court ordered this sentence to run consecutively to the undischarged term for revocation of parole. That term did not end until December 24, 2001, when Mr. deWilliams was reparoled on his sentence for armed bank robbery and false statements. Thus, December 24, 2001, was the day that Mr. deWilliams began serving the new sentence on gun charges. See Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating that “[a] federal sentence does not commence until a prisoner is actually received into federal custody for that purpose”). In these circumstances, we conclude that prison authorities did not fail to award enough credits to Mr. deWilliams based on an erroneous start date for the new sentence.
Mr. deWilliams was detained prior to trial on the new gun charges. In Mr. deWilliams’ view, that time should have been credited against the eventual sentence. We disagree. Under federal law, time spent in pretrial detention can be credited against the eventual sentence if this time had not been credited against another sentence. 5 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). All of the time spent in pretrial detention before December 24, 2001, was credited against the sentence for the parole revocation. Thus, that time could not also be credited against the sentence on the new gun charges. In these circumstances, there was no error in the calculation of credits for pretrial detention.
On appeal, Mr. deWilliams also contends that he should have obtained credit from December 24, 2001, to March 21, 2002. But, this contention was not raised in district court. As a result, this contention is forfeited. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011). Forfeited arguments can be considered for the first time on appeal, but only under the plain-error standard. Id. Because Mr. deWilliams has not urged plain error, we cannot consider the contention. Id. at 1130-31. As a result, we cannot reverse on the claim involving calculation of credits between December 24, 2001, and March 21, 2002.