Court Opinion

ID: 9488204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:39:01.289026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:45.234313
License: Public Domain

EBEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the majority’s disposition of Petitioner’s claims in all respects. However, I write briefly to express disagreement with the rationale employed to reject Petitioner’s claim based on his state plea agreement in Part II. The majority emphasizes that Texas officials promised only to “recommend” that all confinement resulting from the state sentence be served in a federal prison. I do not read the use of the word recommend as weakening Texas’ promise, in effect, to make good faith efforts to ensure that Petitioner actually serve time only in a federal facility. However, notwithstanding that promise, I conclude that Texas preserved its right to imprison Petitioner for the balance of his state sentence if he were released from federal confinement before serving the duration of his state sentence.
Texas’ promise that Petitioner serve his time in a federal facility was premised on the understanding that Petitioner would be serving his full concurrent federal sentence. The state sentence could no longer run concurrently with the federal sentence when the federal sentence was interrupted, and Petitioner could not, therefore, continue to serve his state sentence in a federal institution. Petitioner could not have reasonably understood that in such an instance, he would be *1543excused from serving the remainder of his state sentence altogether. For that reason, I would affirm the district court’s finding that the state plea agreement did not prohibit Texas from imprisoning Petitioner in a state facility during the time that he was prematurely released from federal custody.