Court Opinion

ID: 2964360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:34.332909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:53.793131
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1938

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    GARY JOHNSON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

               Gary Johnson on brief pro se.
               ____________
               Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Edwin J.
               __________________                              ________
          Gale, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee.
          ____

                                 ____________________

               
                                     October 25, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Gary Johnson, who is currently serving a 37
                 __________

            month sentence  in federal prison, appeals  from the district

            court's denial of his pro se  motion for  immediate release. 

            First,  he argues  that  under  18  U.S.C.    3584(a),  which

            provides in relevant part that terms of imprisonment "may not

            run consecutively for an attempt and for another offense that

            was the sole  objective of  the attempt," he  is entitled  to

            immediate release.  This argument  is based on the  erroneous

            assumption  that the  federal crime  of possessing  a firearm

            with  an  obliterated serial  number and  the state  crime of

            robbery   constitute "an  attempt" and "another  offense that

            was the  sole objective  of the  attempt" under  the statute.

            However, these  are distinct  crimes for which  the sentences

            may run consecutively.

                 Second, Johnson  argues that under 18  U.S.C.   3585(a),

            his  federal  sentence began  to run  while  he was  in state

            custody,  because that  statute  does not  specifically state

            that  a  prisoner must  be in  federal  custody to  cause the
                                           _______

            sentence  to begin running.  This argument does not take into

            account all of  the pertinent portions of the  statute, which

            provides that "[a] sentence  . . . commences on  the date the

            defendant  is received  in custody  . .  . [at]  the official

            detention facility  at which the  sentence is to  be served."

            Because  the federal  government  never designated  the state

            prison as "the  official detention facility"  where Johnson's

                                         -2-

            federal sentence  would be  served, his federal  sentence did

            not begin to run until he reached the federal prison that was

            designated as his "official detention facility."

                 Third, Johnson argues that under 18 U.S.C.  3585 (b)  he

            is  entitled to  have  the time  he  spent in  state  custody

            credited toward his federal sentence.  The statue provides in

            relevant part: "A  defendant shall be given credit toward the

            service  of a term of imprisonment for  any time he has spent

            in  official  detention  prior   to  the  date  the  sentence

            commences  . . . that  has not been  credited against another

            sentence."   Crediting the time Johnson spent in state prison

            against  his federal  sentence would  be improper  under this

            statute because Johnson's detention at the state facility was

            credited against his state sentence.

                 Finally,  Johnson argues  that the  state court  had the

            power  to  order his  federal  and  state  sentences  to  run

            concurrently.   However,  a state  court does  not have  this

            power  where, as  here, the  state sentence  is to  be served

            first.   Any  error that  occurred in  this case  occurred in

            state court, while the federal court acted entirely properly;

            any  remedy  for  this  harm would  involve  Johnson's  state

            sentence  rather  than his  federal  sentence.   Johnson  has

            already finished  serving his  state sentence.   We therefore

            summarily  affirm   the  district  court's   order  and  deny

            appellant's motion for immediate release.

                                         -3-

                 Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________