Court Opinion

ID: 9400838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:00:59.752618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.423536
License: Public Domain

CLD-117                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 22-3197
                                      ___________

                                    DEAN VIPRINO,
                                                 Appellant

                                             v.

                            WARDEN LEWISBURG USP
                       ____________________________________

                    On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                              (D.C. Civ. No. 1:21-cv-02014)
                    District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
                      ____________________________________

                 Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
                 Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   March 30, 2023
         Before: GREENAWAY, Jr., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: June 9, 2023)
                                      __________

                                        OPINION*
                                       __________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

       Dean Viprino is a federal inmate serving a term of imprisonment (the federal

sentence) following his plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the District

of Massachusetts to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. The federal sentence was

ordered to run concurrent with state sentences Viprino was then serving, pursuant to

separate convictions. The federal sentence is currently set to expire on April 10, 2024.

       Viprino initiated this pro se habeas proceeding, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Viprino at the time

was incarcerated at USP-Lewisburg in Pennsylvania, so his habeas petition named that

institution’s warden (the Government) as the respondent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

       In his petition, Viprino demanded earlier release based on his detention in state-

and county-run facilities between February 1, 2018 and March 5, 2019, when the federal

sentence was imposed. The Government responded that Viprino had already been given

credit, towards his state sentence, for the custody in question. Double credit, it noted, was

proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

       The District Court denied Viprino’s petition without holding an evidentiary

hearing. In addition to relying on § 3585(b), the District Court observed that Viprino’s

request for credit was inconsistent with “the sentencing court’s statement that Viprino’s

sentence was ‘to begin immediately and run concurrently with the remainder’ of his state

court sentences.” DC Op. at 7 (citation omitted). The District Court declined to consider

                                              2
Viprino’s alternative argument that his § 846 conviction should be vacated, based on a

purported plea defect, because “[c]laims seeking to rescind a guilty plea are properly

brought through motions pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 2255] rather than Section 2241 habeas

corpus petitions.” Id. Finally, the District Court rejected on exhaustion grounds Viprino’s

argument that he is entitled to sentencing credit under the First Step Act of 2018.

       Viprino appealed.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a).2

Our review is plenary. See Cordaro v. United States, 933 F.3d 232, 241 (3d Cir. 2019).

       Before any briefs were due, the Government moved for summary affirmance. That

motion is granted because Viprino’s habeas petition inarguably was properly denied, for

substantially the reasons given in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. See 18

U.S.C. § 3585(b) (detailing scenarios in which “[a] defendant shall be given credit toward

the service of a term of imprisonment” for prior custody, each conditioned on the fact that

the prior custody “has not been credited against another sentence”); see also Blood v.

Bledsoe, 648 F.3d 203, 209 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (recognizing that “§ 3585(b)

prohibits double crediting”). Consequently, we will affirm the judgment of the District

Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2018).

1
  During this appeal, Viprino was relocated to a Residential Reentry Management facility
in New York City. A transfer of custody typically requires a substitution of the named
respondent. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004).
2
 Viprino does not need a certificate of appealability to proceed. See Reese v. Warden
Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 2018).
                                            3