Thomas v. Ledezma , 341 F. App'x 407 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 12, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN KINDELL THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-6219
(D.C. No. 5:08-CV-00440-C)
H.A. LEDEZMA, Warden, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Thomas is a federal prisoner serving an 84-month sentence for
possession of a firearm. He seeks credit toward his federal sentence for time
previously served on a Texas state sentence. Initially, he attempted to obtain this
credit by pursuing his administrative remedies within the prison system. When
that proved unsuccessful, he brought this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
habeas corpus. 1 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of his
custodian, Warden H.A. Ledezma, finding that the uncontroverted evidence
demonstrated that Mr. Thomas had already received all of the credit to which he
was entitled. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This procedurally-complex case involves the interaction and computation of
three different sentences. Accordingly, we will carefully detail the relevant facts
before proceeding to our analysis of the issues.
Mr. Thomas received the first of his three sentences (No. 20,996-85) from
Brazos County, Texas in 1992, when he was sentenced there to fourteen years’
incarceration for possession of cocaine. He began serving time toward this
sentence on September 25, 1991 and remained incarcerated for nearly six years
until July 2, 1997, when Brazos County released him on parole. 2
He was free after that for about fifteen months, until September 18, 1998,
when he was arrested by Burleson County, Texas authorities on drug and firearms
1
The district court treated his habeas petition as one brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, which requires a certificate of appealability (COA) to proceed
on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). But since the petition challenges the
execution of his sentence, it is more properly viewed as a § 2241 petition.
Section 2241 appeals by federal prisoners like Mr. Thomas do not require a COA.
See McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997).
2
Mr. Thomas was not actually sentenced in Brazos County until June 3,
1992, but he was incarcerated beginning on September 25, 1991, the date of his
arrest. The service of his sentence is counted from the earlier date.
-2-
charges. He was released on bond the next day. This arrest ultimately resulted in
his other two sentences: a federal sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon,
and a Burleson County state sentence for controlled substance charges.
Six days later, on September 25, 1998, he was re-arrested for violating the
terms of his Brazos County parole. He remained in jail from September 25, 1998
through November 27, 1998, pending disposition of the Burleson County charges.
On November 28, 1998, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
re-commenced his service of his Brazos County sentence, though his parole had
not yet officially been revoked.
On December 10, 1998, Mr. Thomas was “borrowed” via a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum (HCAP) from state detention in Burleson County to be
prosecuted by federal authorities. On April 9, 1999, based on his guilty plea, he
was sentenced to 84 months’ incarceration by the Federal District Court for the
Western District of Texas for possession of a firearm by a felon. The federal
judgment was silent concerning whether it would run concurrently or
consecutively to any sentence to be imposed in Burleson County as a result of
Mr. Thomas’s September 18, 1998, arrest.
Mr. Thomas was returned to the custody of Burleson County on April 21,
1999. He was subsequently charged in that county with unlawful possession of a
firearm (enhanced) (Case No. 11,902) and possession of a controlled substance
(enhanced) (Case No. 11,903). On July 7, 1999, he pleaded guilty to possession
-3-
of a controlled substance (Case No. 11,903) and was sentenced in Burleson
County to another fourteen-year sentence. The charge in Case No. 11,902 was
dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
On August 11, 1999, Brazos County officially revoked Mr. Thomas’s
parole. He was ordered to serve the remainder of his fourteen-year sentence in
Case No. 20,996-85. 3
Mr. Thomas subsequently filed a state habeas corpus petition, contending
that his guilty plea in Burleson County had been involuntary. He noted that his
Burleson County plea agreement had included a provision that his state sentence
would run concurrently with his federal sentence. See R. at 138. 4 In spite of this
provision in his state plea agreement, he contended, the federal authorities had
refused to credit him with time he was serving in Burleson County. On
October 26, 2005, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) determined, per
curiam, that Mr. Thomas was entitled to relief based on the involuntary nature of
his plea. Accordingly, it set aside the judgment based on the guilty plea in Case
3
He was determined to be “out of custody” (and hence, received no credit
towards his Brazos County sentence) during the 513 days that elapsed between
July 3, 1997 (the day after he was paroled) and November 27, 1998 (the day prior
to the recommencement of his Brazos County sentence).
4
The judgment on his guilty plea provided, generically, that it would run
“CONCURRENT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED” but said nothing
specifically about the federal sentence. R. at 139.
-4-
No. 11,903, and remanded to permit Mr. Thomas to answer the Burleson County
charges against him.
On December 12, 2005, Mr. Thomas was transferred from the TDCJ to
Burleson County to face charges. Rather than re-prosecute him, however, on
December 29, 2006, the state moved in the district court in Burleson County to
dismiss Cases 11,902 and 11,903, on the basis that Mr. Thomas had been
convicted in the federal case based on the same incident. On January 18, 2007,
his Burleson County sentence was dismissed in favor of his federal sentence.
Meanwhile, on April 3, 2006, Mr. Thomas had posted bond in Burleson
County based on the TCCA decision. On April 5, 2006, he was released in error
to the United States Marshals for service of his federal sentence. In fact, he was
still serving time on his fourteen-year Brazos County sentence and should have
finished that sentence before being released to federal custody. On April 27,
2006, he was moved (again, in error) to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Three Rivers, Texas.
The BOP prepared a sentence computation that showed Mr. Thomas began
serving his federal sentence on April 5, 2006, when his custody was transferred to
the federal marshals. As part of the BOP’s computation, he was credited with
time served toward his federal sentence for two time periods: the time between
his initial arrest by Burleson County authorities on September 18, 1998, until his
release the next day on bond, and the time he spent in jail in Burleson County
-5-
from September 25, 1998 through November 27, 1998, as this time had not
previously been credited to his Brazos County sentence.
On December 14, 2006, Mr. Thomas was paroled from his fourteen-year
Brazos County sentence. He continues to serve his federal sentence.
Mr. Thomas began exhausting his administrative remedies with the BOP in
October 2006. He contended that his federal sentence should have been run
concurrently to his state sentences; that he had been serving his federal sentence
since its imposition; and that he had therefore completed his federal sentence and
was entitled to immediate release. His administrative appeals were denied. But
when he reached the national level, the BOP considered his request for sentencing
credit as a request for nunc pro tunc (NPT) designation of his federal sentence to
run concurrently with the Burleson County sentence, a matter that the federal
court had never expressly resolved in its sentencing.
On July 10, 2007, the BOP wrote to Judge Sparks, the judge who had
sentenced Mr. Thomas in the Western District of Texas, asking him to state his
position with respect to a retroactive designation of Mr. Thomas’s federal
sentence to run concurrently with the Burleson County sentence. Judge Sparks
responded that he could think of no reason not to run the sentences consecutively
and that he would not recommend a concurrent designation. 5 The BOP
5
Judge Sparks noted:
(continued...)
-6-
subsequently denied Mr. Thomas’s request for a NPT designation. He is now
serving time on his federal conviction at the FCI in El Reno, Oklahoma. His
anticipated release date from federal custody is June 3, 2012.
ANALYSIS
We review the district court’s legal conclusions in denying Mr. Thomas’s
habeas claims de novo, see Weekes v. Fleming, 301 F.3d 1175, 1176-77 (10th Cir.
2002), and its factual findings for clear error, Martinez v. Flowers, 164 F.3d
1257, 1258 (10th Cir. 1998). In his pro se briefing, Mr. Thomas makes three
basic arguments: (1) he should have begun serving his federal sentence as soon as
it was imposed; (2) he should have received credit toward his federal sentence for
the time he spent on his Burleson County state sentence; and (3) his Texas state
sentences should have been run concurrently, not consecutively, with his federal
sentence. We will consider each of these arguments in turn.
5
(...continued)
Edwin Thomas is a person addicted both to drugs and criminal
conduct. At the time I sentenced him, he was thirty years old and
already had perfected a criminal history of VI under the Sentencing
Guidelines. His guideline range was 84 to 105 months. He was
sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines because of his drug
addiction [a]ffecting his personal and criminal conduct while out of
the penitentiary.
A review of this case will confirm that Mr. Thomas was arrested
possessing marijuana and crack cocaine, along with two pistols and
one shotgun all within reach of his vehicle.
R. at 101.
-7-
1. Time Federal Sentence Began
Mr. Thomas argues that he began serving his federal sentence on April 9,
1999, the date he was sentenced in federal court, rather than on April 5, 2006,
when he was transferred from state custody to the custody of federal marshals.
His argument appears to rest on the fact that his Burleson County sentence was
not imposed until July 7, 1999, after his federal sentence came into existence and
(according to his theory) he had been serving time on the federal sentence for
nearly three months. He adds that the district court misconstrued his argument,
which is that the later-imposed Burleson County sentence ran concurrently to the
federal sentence, and not vice versa.
This analysis fails to take into account the effect of the Brazos County
sentence, which the TDCJ re-commenced on November 28, 1998, before
Mr. Thomas was sentenced in the federal case. After his federal sentence was
imposed, he was returned to state custody, still serving a state sentence from
Brazos County. Any time he served before being transferred to Burleson County
custody was thus state time, not federal time.
Also, although the federal sentence was imposed prior to his Burleson
County sentence, under the applicable law his federal time did not actually begin
to run until he was taken into federal custody, which only occurred on April 5,
2006. See Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2006)
(holding that “[a] federal sentence does not commence until a prisoner is actually
-8-
received into federal custody for that purpose.”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). 6
Finally, we note that the federal authorities had no duty to take him immediately
into custody before he had completed the service of his state sentences.
Bloomgren v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688, 691 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Weekes,
301 F.3d at 1180 (“The sovereign that first acquires custody of a defendant in a
criminal case is entitled to custody until it has exhausted its remedy against the
defendant.”).
2. Credit for Time Served
Mr. Thomas also argues that he was entitled to credit against his federal
sentence for time he spent incarcerated on his Burleson County sentence. The
district court found that he had already received credit for this time against his
Brazos County sentence, and that awarding him credit against the federal sentence
as well would constitute impermissible double credit. We agree.
The applicable statute reads as follows:
(b) Credit for prior custody.--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--
(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or
6
The temporary federal custody pursuant to the HCAP did not “begin” the
service of Mr. Thomas’s sentence, because he was surrendered back to state
custody without having been received at a federal penal institution for service of
his federal sentence. See Weekes, 301 F.3d at 1179-80.
-9-
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was
arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence
was imposed;
that has not been credited against another sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (emphasis added).
Against this theory, Mr. Thomas argues that the time he spent on his
Burleson County sentence was not, in fact, credited against his Brazos County
sentence because the Burleson County sentence was ultimately overturned by the
TCCA. He cites no authority for this proposition, which defies logic. He fails to
show that the ultimate disposition of the Burleson County sentence has anything
to do with whether time he spent serving it was credited to his Brazos County
sentence. He also presents no evidence to rebut the warden’s evidence that he
received full credit.
3. Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentencing
Finally, Mr. Thomas argues that his federal and Burleson County sentences
should have been run concurrently, not consecutively. Federal law is to the
contrary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (stating that “[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment
imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms
are to run concurrently.” (emphasis added)). The federal district court that
sentenced Mr. Thomas made no determination that the federal term would run
concurrently with the pending state sentence. But when later asked whether the
sentences should run concurrently, the federal sentencing judge indicated that
-10-
they should not. The BOP subsequently denied NPT concurrent sentencing
designation.
Mr. Thomas argues, however, that the sentences should run concurrently
because that is what he agreed to in his state plea agreement. But as we recently
explained in a factually similar case, “[a]lthough [Mr. Thomas’s] state sentence
provides for concurrent service of the federal and state sentences, the state court’s
decision cannot alter the federal-court sentence,” which runs consecutively to, not
concurrently with, the state sentence. United States v. Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249,
1254 (10th Cir.) (citing Bloomgren, 948 F.2d at 691) (holding that whether a
defendant’s “federal sentence would run consecutively to his state sentence is a
federal matter which cannot be overridden by a state court provision for
concurrent sentencing on a subsequently-obtained state conviction.”)), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 430 (2008).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr. Thomas’s motion to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-11-