Court Opinion

ID: 9352512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 20:01:51.505978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.637640
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11089    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 01/06/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit
                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11089
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       WILLIAM SERNA-ARROYAVE,
       a.k.a. Cuuper,
       a.k.a. Cooper,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00325-MHC-LTW-1
USCA11 Case: 22-11089      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11089

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               William Serna-Arroyave appeals the district court’s denial of
       his motion for rehearing of its denial of his motion for jail time
       credit. He argues that that the district court erred in calculating his
       jail time credit because it failed to include all the time he served in
       between his arrest in Costa Rica on July 3, 2019, and his sentencing
       on September 21, 2021.
              We are required to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte, and
       we review jurisdictional issues de novo. United States v. Lopez,
       562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009).
               A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a
       term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official deten-
       tion prior to the date the sentence commences that has not been
       credited against another sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). In in-
       terpreting § 3585(b), the Supreme Court has held that the Attorney
       General, through the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), is authorized to
       compute time-served credit, not the district courts. United States
       v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35 (1992). Accordingly, a district court
       cannot award time-served credit under § 3585(b). Id. Federal of-
       fenders seeking credit for time spent in presentence custody must
       first exhaust all administrative remedies through the BOP before
       seeking review in federal court. Rodriguez v. Lamer, 60 F.3d 745,
       747 (11th Cir. 1995). The procedures a defendant must follow in
USCA11 Case: 22-11089      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-11089                Opinion of the Court                         3

       this respect are set out in 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10–542.16. United States
       v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir. 1990). Those regulations
       require a defendant to, inter alia, submit an initial filing to an ap-
       propriate member of staff at his correctional institution, see 28
       C.F.R. § 542.14(c)(4), and then, if he is not satisfied, he can file a
       motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d
       1340, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000). Exhaustion of administrative remedies
       is jurisdictional. Lucas, 898 F.2d at 1556.
               We conclude that this issue is not ripe for judicial review be-
       cause the record fails to show that Serna-Arroyave has exhausted
       his administrative remedies before the BOP for review of credit re-
       ceived for time served, and he also did not seek credit for time
       served in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
               We thus vacate the district court’s order and remand with
       instructions to enter an order dismissing the motion for lack of ju-
       risdiction without prejudice so that Serna-Arroyave may exhaust
       his administrative remedies.
              VACATED AND REMANDED.