United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
DARYL J. CANE, Petitioner,
JOHN T. RATHMAN, Respondent.
OWEN BOWDRE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Daryl J. Cane, a federal
prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc. 1). Cane
challenges the execution of his sentence imposed pursuant to
his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Id. at
2). When Cane filed the petition, he was incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institute in Talladega, Alabama.
(Id. at 3). Cane alleges he has exhausted his
administrative remedies, and the respondent concedes this
allegation. (Id. at 2; Doc. 5 at 3-4). For the reasons
discussed below, Cane's petition is due to be denied.
9, 2010, Cane was sentenced in Tennessee state court
to a six-year term of confinement for a probation violation
related to drug and firearm charges. (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 5 at
2). On or about January 26, 2011, Cane was transferred to
federal authorities on a writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum to face a federal charge for being a felon
in possession of a firearm. (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 5 at 2). On
September 23, 2011, after pleading guilty to the federal
charge, Cane was sentenced in a Tennessee federal
district court to a 105-month term of imprisonment, to run
concurrently with his state sentence. (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 5 at
2). Although he was returned to state authorities to complete
his state sentence, Cane received credit against his federal
sentence beginning September 23, 2011. (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 5
at 2-3). On January 6, 2012, Cane was released on parole by
state authorities and transferred to federal custody to
complete his federal sentence. (Id. at 3).
action, Cane seeks credit against his federal sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) for the eight months
between January and September 2011, during which state
authorities loaned him to federal authorities in connection
with the federal firearm charge. (Doc. 1 at 2). Cane claims
he did not receive credit against his state sentence for this
time in federal custody. (Id.).
response to an order to show cause why the relief requested
by Cane should not be granted, the respondent claimed Cane
did receive credit against his state sentence for
this time. (Doc. 5 at 10-11). In support of this claim, the
respondent submitted an e-mail from an employee of the
Tennessee Department of Correction to an employee of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) dated October
4, 2011, stating Cane received credit against his state
sentence for the period “5-24-10 to present.”
(Doc. 5-2 at 24).
the magistrate judge notified Cane his petition was deemed
ripe for summary disposition based on the respondent's
response to the order to show cause, Cane submitted letters
from the Tennessee Department of Correction dated February 19
and May 1, 2014, notifying him credits for the time in 2011
during which he was loaned to federal authorities could
not be applied to his state sentence until the
department received a progress report from federal
authorities. (Doc. 7 at 7-8).
the 2011 e-mail indicated Cane did receive credit against his
state sentence for the eight months at issue, but the 2014
letters suggested he may not have received this credit, the
magistrate judge ordered the respondent to address this
question of fact through the submission of a brief and/or
evidentiary material. (Doc. 8).
a response accompanied by supporting evidentiary material,
the respondent has clarified Cane received credit against his
state sentence for the eight months at issue while in
pretrial federal custody and the credit referenced in the
2014 letters was for behavior and performance credits that
could reduce his state sentence. (Doc. 9 at 2-3; Doc. 9-1 at
3-4; Doc. 9-5).
is responsible for computing a federal sentence pronounced by
a district court. See United States v. Wilson, 503
U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (“After a district court sentences
a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP,
has the responsibility for administering the
sentence.”). A federal prisoner may challenge the
BOP's computation of his sentence through a § 2241
petition. See Antonelli v. Warden, 542 F.3d 1348,
1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding § 2241 petition is proper
vehicle for challenging execution, rather than validity, of
3585(b) provides as follows:
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 ...