Court Opinion

ID: 9382391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 17:00:24.474839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.047238
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2146
                                       __________

                          KENNY CLYDE HOMER BEVARD,
                                          Appellant

                                             v.

                             WARDEN COLEMAN USP
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of New Jersey
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-02410)
                       District Judge: Honorable Reneé M. Bumb
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                   March 17, 2023
               Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: March 27, 2023)
                                     ___________

                                       OPINION *
                                     _____________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Pro se appellant Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard appeals from the District Court’s

denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons,

we will dismiss the appeal in part and otherwise affirm the District Court’s judgment.

       On January 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Iowa imposed on Bevard an 86-month term of imprisonment for possessing a stolen

firearm, and a 21-month term for violating supervised release, for a total of 107 months.

The court ordered the two terms to run consecutively and that Bevard’s federal sentence

run consecutive to a five-year state sentence imposed in the Iowa state court, which he

was already serving. Except for his brief escape in April 2014, Bevard had been in the

custody of state or federal officials since January 21, 2014.

       In 2021, Bevard, who had finished serving his state sentence and was in federal

custody at FCI-Fairton in New Jersey, filed a § 2241 petition in the United States District

Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the calculation of his federal sentence.

Specifically, Bevard claimed that the BOP had not properly credited the time he spent

incarcerated from January 21, 2014, until August 11, 2016—the date of his federal

sentence commitment. As it turns out, he was partially correct. In preparing a response

to the § 2241 petition, the BOP updated his federal sentence computation to include

custody credit from January 21, 2014, through April 16, 2014, and July 19 through July

20, 2016, because that time in custody had not been applied to any sentence. It also now

recognized that Bevard had been in exclusive federal custody on an earlier day (July 18,

2016). Nevertheless, because Bevard’s federal sentence ran consecutive to his state

sentence, he did not otherwise earn custody credit while in state custody. If he earned all
                                              2
available good time credit, the BOP projected Bevard’s release date to be January 9,

2024. The District Court accepted the Government’s computation and denied Bevard’s §

2241 petition. He filed a timely notice of appeal.

       On appeal, Bevard appears to have conceded that his state and federal sentences

ran consecutively but argued that the BOP had not properly accounted for his federal

custody between April 5, 2016, and August 1, 2016. In support, he submitted an

“Offender Movement Summary” issued by the Iowa Department of Corrections which

showed that Bevard was paroled to the U.S. Marshal Service on May 5, 2016. In light of

that document, the BOP once again revised its sentence computation to reflect that

Bevard entered exclusive federal custody on May 5, 2016 (rather than July 18, 2016). 1 It

likewise adjusted his projected release date to November 22, 2023, if he receives all

available good time credit. See 3d Cir. Dkt. no. 7 at 4. The Government filed a brief

opposing Bevard’s appeal on exhaustion, waiver, and mootness grounds. The time for

Bevard to file a reply brief has now passed.

       We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise

plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review factual findings for

clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner, 290, F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002)

(per curiam). Considering that the BOP has already revised its computation to

incorporate May 5, 2016, as the date he was paroled to federal custody and that he has

1
 The Government maintains that Bevard’s use of “April 5, 2016” is a typographical
error, because the document he submitted shows that he was paroled to exclusive federal
custody on “May 5, 2016”.
                                               3
remained in federal custody ever since, there is no relief for the Court to grant in this

appeal. See Blanciak v .Allegheny Ludlum Copt., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996)

(noting that “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a

court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot”).

To the extent that Bevard intended to argue that he is entitled to a custody credit between

April 5 and May 5, 2016, we will affirm the judgment because evidence in the record

before the District Court supports the BOP’s assertion that Bevard entered federal

custody on May 5, 2016. See ECF No. 3-4 at 11; No. 7 at 13, 17; see also United States

v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 201 (3d Cir. 2015) (explaining that we may affirm the

District Court for any reason supported by the record).

       Accordingly, we will partially dismiss the appeal as moot, and will otherwise

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

                                              4