United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on a letter by defendant Gill
Dewayne Garrett (DE 198) in which he requests the Court to 1)
order that he receive credit against his sentence for time
served in custody prior to his federal indictment; and 2)
that the Court order that his federal sentence run
consecutive to a state sentence imposed for unrelated crimes.
The Court must deny both requests.
pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and
fentanyl and to distributing fentanyl, which resulted in an
overdose death. By judgment dated October 4, 2016, the Court
sentenced Garrett to a total term of imprisonment of 240
months. On motion by the United States, the Court decreased
Garrett's sentence to 180 months.
Garrett's request that he receive credit against his
sentence for time served in custody prior to his federal
indictment in this matter, whether a defendant is entitled to
prior-custody credit on a federal sentence is controlled by
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which provides:
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
(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
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for calculating a
defendant's sentence, including his entitlement to
prior-custody credit. “After a district court sentences
a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP,
has the responsibility for administering the sentence.”
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992)
(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a)). “To fulfill this
duty, the BOP must know how much of the sentence the offender
has left to serve. Because the offender has a right to
certain jail-time credit under § 3585(b), and because
the district court cannot determine the amount of the credit
at sentencing, the Attorney General has no choice but to make
the determination as an administrative matter when
imprisoning the defendant.” Id.
challenging the BOP's calculation of his sentence in this
Court, however, Garrett must exhaust the BOP's
administrative remedies. See 28 C.F.R. §
542.10-16. After the BOP makes a final decision, Garrett may
challenge that decision by filing a petition for judicial
review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district in which
he is incarcerated. See Rogers v. United States, 180
F.3d 349, 357-58 (1st Cir. 1999); Charles v.
Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999).
second request is that the Court order that his federal
sentence be served after a state sentence that was imposed
against him. Garrett does not provide any details regarding
his state sentence. From this Court's records, it appears
that the state sentence was imposed after this Court imposed
the federal sentence and that the crimes underlying the state
sentence were third-degree rape, trafficking in a controlled
substance (not related to the conduct underlying his federal
conviction), and being a felon in possession of a handgun.
These were the state charges pending against Garrett at the
time he was sentenced in this Court. A state drug-trafficking
charge based on the same conduct underlying this federal case
was dismissed when the federal indictment was filed.
asserts that the state court ruled that the state sentence
should run consecutive to the federal sentence. With his
letter, he asks that this Court order the opposite: that the
federal sentence run consecutive to the later-imposed state
Court, however, is not permitted to amend Garrett's
judgment at this point. The amended judgment was entered
April 19, 2018. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a)
provides, “Within 14 days after sentencing, the court
may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical,
technical, or other clear error.” Garrett does not
assert any such error in the Court's judgment, and more
than 14 days have elapsed since sentencing. Rule 36 permits
the Court to, “at any time correct a clerical error in
a judgment . . . .” But the defendant does not assert
any such error.
Garrett's request to amend the judgment to provide that
the federal sentence must run consecutive to the state
sentence appears to be moot. Garrett states that the reason
he wants the Court to order that the state sentence be served
first is so that he may be incarcerated at a medium-security
prison while serving his federal sentence. According to ...