United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C.
§ 2241) filed by pro se Petitioner Clifton Funzie
(#21854-076) (“Funzie”). Funzie is an inmate in
the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Pollock, Louisiana. Funzie challenges the
computation of his sentence by the BOP, the validity of the
sentence imposed by the district court, and the performance
of his attorney at sentencing.
Funzi has received all the credit due on his federal
sentence, his claim for additional credit for time served
should be denied and dismissed. Funzi's challenge to his
attorney's performance and the legality of the sentence
imposed by the district court should be dismissed for lack of
was arrested by Tennessee authorities for aggravated robbery
while on parole in several state criminal cases. (Doc. 1-2,
p. 11). Shortly thereafter, the Tennessee Department of
Corrections revoked Funzie's parole, and Funzie was
placed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of
Corrections to serve the remainder of his 20-year sentence.
was thereafter convicted in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee of two counts of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (Docket No.
2:07-CR-20192, W.D. Tenn., Doc. 73). Funzie was sentenced to
188 months of imprisonment, to be served “consecutive
to the Parole Violations out of Shelby County Criminal Court,
Memphis, TN in cases 99-05116, 99-05117, 99-05118, 99-05119,
99-05120, 99-05121, 99-05122 and 99-05127.” (Docket No.
2:07-CR-20192, W.D. Tenn., Doc. 73).
did not appeal, but filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 raising three claims: (1) whether his sentence
was illegal; (2) whether his attorney rendered ineffective
assistance in connection with the sentencing; and (3) whether
his guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary. (Docket No.
2:09-CV-02644, W.D. Tenn.). The court denied Funzie's
motion in a 21-page ruling. (Docket No. 2:09-CV-02644, W.D.
Tenn., Doc. 13). Funzie did not appeal.
§ 2241 petition, Funzie claims the BOP failed to grant a
nunc pro tunc designation. Funzie also complains
that his sentence was miscalculated by the trial court, and
that his attorney provided ineffective assistance at
Law and Analysis
Funzie's § 2241 claim for additional credit is
authority to grant or deny credit for time served, or a
nunc pro tunc designation, is specifically reserved
to the United States Attorney General, who has delegated that
responsibility to the BOP. See U.S. v. Wilson, 503
U.S. 329 (1992). The district court may review a challenge to
the BOP's refusal to grant credit or make such a
designation in a § 2241 petition. See Pierce v.
Holder, 614 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir. 2010).
federal judgment is silent with respect to whether sentences
are to run concurrently or consecutively, the presumption is
that they will run consecutively unless the court
specifically orders that they run concurrently. See
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S. v. Jack, 566
Fed.Appx. 331, 332 (5th Cir. 2014); Free v. Miles,
333 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 2003). In Funzie's case, the
federal court specifically and clearly ordered that the
federal sentence run consecutive to the state sentence in the
enumerated cases. (Docket No. 2:07-CR-20192, W.D. Tenn., Doc.
18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) prohibits the application of any
time toward a federal sentence that has been credited against
another sentence. The time during which Funzie was
“loaned” to the federal court pursuant to a writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was credited toward
Funzie's state sentence. (Doc. 1, p. 23). Therefore,
Funzie is only entitled to ...