United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS. 14, 15]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Wahid petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the Bureau of Prisons
(the “BOP”) erroneously calculated his
2014, an Ohio court sentenced Wahid to eighteen months
incarceration for community control violations. About a week
later, a federal grand jury indicted Wahid for drug
offenses. On June 26, 2014, the Court issued a writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to secure
Wahid's appearance in the federal case,  which was
executed on July 3, 2014.
March 16, 2015, Wahid pled guilty in the federal case and the
Court sentenced Wahid to 120 months incarceration “with
credit for time served in federal
custody.” The Court did not specify whether this
sentence would run concurrently or consecutively with
Wahid's ongoing state sentence.
Wahid then returned to state prison. The state authorities
counted Wahid's time facing federal prosecution towards
his state sentence. On June 5, 2015, Wahid completed his
state sentence and began his federal sentence.
then asked the BOP to credit the time he served while facing
federal prosecution towards his federal sentence. The BOP
denied his request, prompting this petition.
Judge Greenberg issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny
Wahid's petition. Petitioner objects. Because Wahid has
objected, the Court reviews the R&R de
following reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the
R&R, and DENIES Wahid's petition.
several theories, Wahid argues that the BOP should have
counted the time he served while facing federal prosecution
towards his federal sentence.
at sentencing the Court ordered that Wahid receive credit for
any time spent in federal custody. Wahid seems to argue that
he was in federal custody during the time he was subject to
the federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
Not so. Wahid was in state custody, merely loaned to
the federal system for prosecution.
Wahid seems to argue that 18 U.S.C. § 3585 required the
BOP to credit his time spent facing federal prosecution.
However, § 3585 only requires the BOP to credit time
that has not already been credited towards another
sentence. Because the state authorities already
credited Wahid's time facing federal prosecution towards
his state sentence, Wahid is not entitled to a double
under 18 U.S.C. § 3621, the BOP may effectively run a
prisoner's federal and state sentences concurrently by
retroactively designating a state prison as a prisoner's
place of federal confinement. Wahid asked the BOP to do just
the BOP considers a variety of factors in making a
retroactive designation, Wahid primarily disputes the
BOP's handling of two: relevant statements by the
sentencing court and relevant policy statements by the
Sentencing Commission. The ...