United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
JULIO A. LLANESSA, Petitioner,
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HORN BOOM JUDGE.
inmate and pro se petitioner Julio Llanessa
challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons' calculation of
his prison sentence. Llanessa, who was arrested in Spain and
extradited to the United States, contends he is not being
given credit for over one year of pretrial time served in
Spain before he was transferred to, and subsequently
sentenced by, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. For the reasons that follow,
the Court DENIES Llanessa's 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 habeas petition.
2009, Llanessa was indicted in the Southern District of
Florida on multiple counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and
conspiracy. See United States v. Julio A. Llanessa,
et al., No. 1:09-cr-21027-PCH-1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). After his
initial detainment, Llanessa was released on bond, and he
fled the country. Id. The Florida court issued a
warrant for Llanessa's arrest in 2010, but officials were
unable to locate him until July 19, 2013, when he was finally
arrested in Spain via an Interpol Red Notice. United States
authorities eventually took custody of Llanessa on July 25,
2014, and after being transferred back to the Southern
District of Florida, Llanessa was convicted and sentenced to
a seventy-two month term of imprisonment. See Id. at
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) credited
Llanessa with time served on July 19, 2013 (the date of his
arrest in Spain), but did not credit Llanessa for the time in
between that date and July 25, 2014, when he was given over
to the United States. [R. 1; R. 19 at p. 3] Llanessa claims
he was “in custody” for that entire time period
and, thus, should have the time applied to his sentence. [R.
1] The effect of such a finding would be Llanessa's
immediate release from BOP custody. Id.
reviewing Llanessa's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and
the Warden's response,  the Court finds Llanessa is not
entitled to the relief he seeks. As a preliminary matter, the
Warden asserts Llanessa failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies with respect to his sentence calculation. Because
Llanessa chose not to file a reply brief, he has provided
little argument to the contrary.
petition states that he did exhaust all available
administrative remedies [see R. 1 at p. 3], and the
record makes clear that Llanessa did, at some point, request
an investigation into the possibility of foreign jail
credits. [R. 1-1 at p. 1] However, the Warden contends
Llanessa has submitted only four proper administrative remedy
requests during his period of incarceration, all which relate
to a February 2018 disciplinary hearing. [R. 9 at pp. 5-6]
Before filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, an inmate
must fully and properly exhaust his administrative remedies
through the Federal Bureau of Prisons' administrative
grievance procedures. See Little v. Hopkins, 638
F.2d 953, 953-54 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). If Llanessa failed to do
so, he is barred from seeking relief in this Court.
furthermore, and the issue of exhaustion notwithstanding, the
record suggests Llanessa was not officially detained in Spain
from July 19, 2013, through July 25, 2014, such that he is
due credit for time served during that period. A federal
inmate's sentence is calculated pursuant to the terms of
18 U.S.C. § 3585. A subsection of that statute explains
when and whether an inmate receives credit for any time spent
in prior custody:
(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
(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) (emphasis added).
detention” for purposes of section 3585(b) means actual
incarceration or “conditions equivalent to physical
incarceration.” See United States v. Becak,
954 F.2d 386, 388 (6th Cir. 1992). An inmate is not entitled
to prior custody credit for time spent in a halfway house,
United States v. Woods, 888 F.2d 653 (10th Cir.
1989); for time spent in home confinement, United States
v. Zackular, 945 F.2d 423 (1st Cir. 1991); or for time
served under restrictive conditions that do not rise to the
level of physical incarceration, United States v.
Insley, 927 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1991).
contends he was in Spanish custody from his July 19, 2013
arrest through his July 25, 2014 transfer to United States
authorities. [R. 1 at pp. 6-7] In support of this position,
Llanessa cites to one sentence in the note verbale
(a piece of diplomatic correspondence) submitted to Spanish
leaders on behalf of the United States Embassy which reads:
“LLANESSA was provisionally arrested in Spain on 19
July 2913, and is currently in custody.” [R. 1-1 at p.
5] But while the August 22, 2013 note verbale
suggests that, at least at that point in time, Llanessa was
still in some form of Spanish custody, the note
verbale does not define the terms of that custody.
Additional evidence in the record indicates Llanessa's
time in Spanish custody did not “rise to the level of
physical incarceration” required for prior custody
credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). See Becak,
954 F.2d at 387.
from a Department of Justice International Affairs Specialist
who was tasked with obtaining information about
Llanessa's foreign custody status states that the same
day Llanessa was arrested in Spain-July 19, 2013-the Spanish
judge released him “with some measures to prevent his
escape.” [R. 9-1 at p. 10] For example, Llanessa was
required to appear before Spanish authorities from time to
time to prevent his escape, and his passport was withdrawn.
Id. Thus, although the note verbale does
refer to Llanessa being “in custody, ” the terms
of that custody were not stringent enough to be considered
“official detention” under 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b). As a result, even if Llanessa did properly exhaust