Yusufu v. Ashcroft ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10918
Summary Calendar
ISA DANASABE YUSUFU,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States; KATHLEEN HAWK, Director, Bureau of
Prisons; U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CV-79-C
- - - - - - - - - -
February 15, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isa Danasabe Yusufu, a federal prisoner (# 19292-077),
appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. Although Yusufu’s current claims appear to be
successive, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), the district court chose to
address the merits of his claims.
Yusufu asserts that a federal sentence he received in
federal district court in Wisconsin should have run concurrently
with a subsequently-imposed state sentence he served in Texas and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-10918
-2-
that his sentences have thus expired. (The records support the
BOP’s position that the sentences ran consecutively and that
Yusufu served the state sentence first.) He argues that, when
the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) merely adopted the “sentencing
intent” of the federal judge who sentenced him, it improperly
abdicated its discretion to grant his request for a nunc pro tunc
designation to serve his federal sentence in a state facility,
which would have effectuated the concurrent running of the
federal and state sentences. There is no indication in the
record, however, that the BOP abused its “wide discretion” in
declining to grant his request for nunc pro tunc designation.
See Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 483-84 (3d Cir. 1990); BOP
Program Statement 5160.03 ¶ 6.
Yusufu also contends that his federal sentence began in
August 1993 because that is when he was arrested on a federal
warrant and was taken into federal custody; he maintains that he
was illegally transferred to state custody within weeks after his
arrest. This claim by Yusufu is frivolous. When a person has
committed crimes against two sovereigns, the issue of who has
jurisdiction over him is a matter of comity between the two
sovereigns. See Jake v. Herschberger, 173 F.3d 1059, 1065 (7th
Cir. 1999); Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262 (1922). Yusufu
lacks standing to attack any agreement between federal and state
authorities by which he was transferred from federal custody to
state custody for trial, sentencing, and execution of sentence.
See Weathers v. Henderson, 480 F.2d 559, 559-60 (5th Cir. 1973).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.