United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. HOOD SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Antwone M. Sanders, proceeding pro se, moves for
disposition of a federal detainer because he claims the
detainer that is lodged against him violates his due process
rights. However, Sanders's term of supervised release has
not expired, and his challenge to his federal detainer, while
state criminal charges are pending, is premature. Therefore,
Sanders's Motion to Remove Detainer [DE 91] will be
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
December 17, 2014, the Court sentenced Sanders to fifty-one
(51) months imprisonment followed by a three-year term of
supervised release for the unlawful transport of firearms.
[DE 71]. On January 5, 2015, the Court amended its judgment
to run Sanders's fifty-one (51) month imprisonment
sentence concurrently with his twelve (12) month sentence in
a separate case, which resulted from the revocation of
supervised release in that separate case. [DE 74]. On or
about March 15, 2017, Sanders was released from federal
custody to begin his three-year term of supervised release.
3, 2018, the United States Probation Office
(“USPO”) filed a Supervised Release Violation
Report advising that Sanders admitted to smoking marijuana
and tested positive for THC. [DE 83]. Subsequently, on May
21, 2018, the Court held a Final Revocation of Supervised
Release Hearing, found Sanders to be in violation of the
conditions of his supervised release, and modified his
conditions to include both outpatient drug treatment and
increased random drug testing. [DE 84]. On April 25, 2019,
Sanders allegedly violated his conditions of supervised
release when he was arrested by the Lexington Police
Department and charged with Trafficking in a Controlled
Substance, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and Trafficking
in Synthetic Substances. [DE 93]. At the request of the USPO,
the Court issued an arrest warrant for Sanders, and the
arrest warrant was lodged as a detainer at the Fayette County
Detention Center against Sanders, who is currently
incarcerated on his pending state charges stemming from the
April 25, 2019 arrest. Id.
challenge to the detainer is premature. The Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act applies to a detainer based upon a
pending indictment, information, or complaint that requires a
trial. The detainer in the present case arises out of
Sanders's potential supervised release violation. In
Carchman v. Nash, the United States Supreme Court
held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act does not
apply to a probation violation detainer. 473 U.S. 716 (1985).
Moreover, as the United States correctly asserts, “The
law is well-settled that a defendant has no constitutionally
protected right to an immediate hearing when a parole or
supervised release violation warrant is lodged as a
detainer.” [DE 93, at 2 (citing Moody v.
Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976); Brundage v.
Snyder, 27 Fed.Appx. 572 (6th Cir. 2001); Bennett v.
Bogan, 66 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 1995))]. In Moody,
the United States Supreme Court found the following:
[W]ithout regard to what process may be due petitioner before
his parole may be finally revoked, we hold that he has been
deprived of no constitutionally protected rights simply by
issuance of a parole violator warrant. The Commission
therefore has no constitutional duty to provide petitioner an
adversary parole hearing until he is taken into custody as a
parole violator by execution of the warrant.
Moody, 429 U.S. at 89 (emphasis added).
present case, Sanders is not entitled to a hearing prior to
being taken into federal custody because the detainer has no
present or immediate effects upon any of Sanders's
protected liberty interests. Ultimately, it is more expedient
and efficient to wait for resolution of the pending state
criminal charges against Sanders before holding a hearing
related to the potential supervised release violations in his
federal criminal case. As such, Sanders's due process
rights have not been violated because no federal warrant has
been executed against Sanders, meaning he is not in federal
custody. Sanders's loss of liberty for the supervised
release violation will not occur until he is taken into
custody under the supervised release warrant. See United
States v. Ivy, 678 Fed.Appx. 369, 374 (6th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Moody, 429 U.S. at 87) (“[T]he loss
of liberty” for the supervised-release violation did
not occur until Ivy was “taken into custody under the
warrant . . . .”).
Sanders's assertion that he was granted a bond to assist
his attorney with Sanders's state court charges and
“was held by the Holder [sic] by the U.S. Probation
Office, ” Sanders has provided no proof that he has
either met the conditions of the state court's bond or is
being held solely on a federal warrant. The United States
contends, “[Sanders] has not met the state court bond
conditions by paying the requisite $10, 000 cash, reduced to
10% bond, as of the filing of [the United States']
response.” [DE 93, at 2-3]. Moreover, Sanders has
failed to show the supervised release warrant has been
executed. Since Sanders is not currently being held on the
supervised release warrant, he is not entitled to a
revocation of supervised release hearing. ...