Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Duke

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

March 7, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL DUKE

         SECTION “F”

          ORDER AND REASONS

          MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Michael Duke's motion for clarification of sentence, which the Court construes as a motion requesting credit for jail time he has served.[1] For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

         Background

         Michael Duke appeared before the Court for sentencing on January 23, 2019, after having pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. This Court sentenced Duke to 57 months of imprisonment, to be served concurrent to a state sentence imposed on March 2, 2016 in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Neither the Court's oral pronouncement, nor written judgment of Duke's sentence, includes any reference to credit for previous time served. Duke (and his counsel) now ask the Court to clarify its judgment and/or the record to reflect all detention dates that are to be credited against Duke's sentence.

         I.

         A.

         Section 3585(b) of Title 18 of the United States Code governs the calculation of a term of imprisonment and, in particular, credit for prior custody; it 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 imposed; or
(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 another sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

         “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). “Although the statute does not explicitly say who is responsible for calculating the [§ 3585(b)] credit, controlling precedent indicates that it is the Attorney General acting through the Bureau of Prisons.” United States v. Wynder, 659 Fed.Appx. 761, 762-63 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing Wilson, 503 U.S. at 334-335); see also Falcetta v. United States, 734 Fed.Appx. 286, 287 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“[D]ismissal for lack of jurisdiction was appropriate because Falcetta failed to show that he exhausted his sentencing credit claim fully through the multi-step BOP exhaustion procedure.”); United States v. Binion, 981 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1992) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.