The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which Reheim M. Harris ("petitioner" or Harris), an inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") incorrectly computed his federal sentence by not crediting him with thirty-eight months of time spent in state custody on a criminal offense he argues is related to the federal offense. (Doc. 1, at 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be denied.
On May 11, 2007, petitioner was sentenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County in Criminal Case No. 980-06, to a term of imprisonment of two to five years for "Criminal Conspiracy -- Delivery of Cocaine" stemming from an April 24, 2006 arrest. (Doc. 9-1, at 5, ¶ 8.) On the same day as the sentencing, the sentence was modified to allow petitioner to serve the sentence on home confinement. (Id. at ¶ 9.) He was released to home confinement on May 14, 2007. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
On August 7, 2007, he was arrested by the Johnstown Police Department and Cambria County Drug Task Force and charged with False Identification to a Law Enforcement Officer in Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Case No. 1647-07. (Doc. 9-1, at 5, ¶ 11.) The arrest stemmed from activity which occurred between January, 2007, and August 7, 2007. (Id. at 6, ¶ 12.) On January 18, 2008, he was sentenced to three to twelve months of incarceration, which sentence was to run consecutive to the two to five-year sentence he was serving in Criminal Case No. 980-06. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.)
On February 25, 2008, he was taken into custody by the United States Marshal's Service ("USMS") via a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to answer charges in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in federal criminal case CR 07-36-01J. (Doc. 9-1, at 6, ¶15; Doc. 9-1, at 27.) On or about February 8, 2010, he entered a plea of guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess With Intent to Distribute 100 Grams or More of Heroin and 5 Grams or More of Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and Possession With Intent to Distribute Less Than 100 Grams of Heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). In sentencing petitioner, the Court stated as follows: "The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of: 120 months; this sentence consists of 120 months at each of Counts One and Fourteen, which shall be served concurrently with each other and this sentence of the Court shall run concurrent with any other sentence that Defendant is serving from February 8, 2010 forward. This Court's intent is that Defendant's federal sentence shall begin February 8, 2010 and that the period of concurrence with the state sentence shall also begin February 8, 2010." (Doc. 9-1, at 31.)
Petitioner was returned to the custody of state authorities on February 8, 2010. (Doc. 9-1, at 7, ¶ 18; at 27.) On June 9, 2010, he was paroled from the state charges in Cambria County Criminal Case No. 980-06. (Doc. 9-2, at 2.) At that time, he began serving his consecutive three to twelve-month state sentence in Cambria County Criminal Case No. 1647-07. (Doc. 9-1, at 7, ¶ 20.)
On July 20, 2010, the sentenced imposed in Criminal Case No. 1647-07, was vacated. (Doc. 9-1, at 24.) However, on August 3, 2010, the order was amended to reflect that the sentence was suspended. (Id.)
On August 3, 2010, the USMS was notified that all county and state charges against petitioner were resolved and that he was in federal custody as of July 20, 2010. (Doc. 9-2, at 4.) The USMS assumed primary custody of petitioner and he was designated to a federal facility to complete his federal 120-month term of imprisonment. (Doc. 9-1, at 28.) His federal sentence was calculated to begin on February 8, 2010, the date of imposition. (Doc. 9-1, at 27-28, 31.)
Prior to commencing this action, he pursued administrative remedies. The Regional Director responded to the appeal as follows:
A review of your appeal revealed, on August 7, 2007, you were arrested by Pennsylvania Police officials for violation of controlled substance offenses. On December 18, 2007, the state charges were dismissed. You remained in Pennsylvania State custody on pending state revocation charges. On January 18, 2008, you were sentenced by the Cambria County Court, for violation of parole. On February 25, 2008, you were "borrowed" from Pennsylvania State authorities via a federal writ of habeas corpus for prosecution on federal charges. On February 8, 2010, you were sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to 120 months "concurrent with any other sentence that Defendant is serving from February 8, 2010 forward." The state authorities had primary custodial jurisdiction over you until you completed your state sentence. Your production for federal prosecution via a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum did not shift primary jurisdiction from the state. Your federal sentence began on the date imposed, February 8, 2010, the earliest date possible under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a).
Credit for time in detention prior to the sentence commencing is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which prohibits prior custody credit toward a federal sentence when credit is awarded toward another sentence. The Designation and Computation Center (DSCC) correctly found you were not entitled to additional credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), since that time was credited toward your state sentence. Accordingly, your appeal is denied. (Doc. 1, at 6.) The instant petition was filed on May 27, 2011. (Doc. 1.) He has a projected release date of October 25, 2018, via Good Conduct Time release. (Doc. 9-2, at 13.)
A petition for writ for habeas corpus under § 2241 is the proper vehicle for relief "where the petitioner challenges the effects of events 'subsequent' to his sentence," Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir. 1976), and where he challenges the execution of his sentence rather than its validity. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185-88 (1979); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d 4 Cir. 2001). Thus, petitioner has properly invoked section 2241 to challenge the determination of sentencing credit by the Federal Bureau ...