Opinion ID: 2781475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credit Based on Commencement of the Sentence

Text: 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 deWilliams could not 2 Jones is persuasive, but not precedential.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.