United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
James M. Munley Judge United States District Court
Before the court for disposition is a correspondence from the defendant which we will construe as a motion for reconsideration of our Memorandum and Order of May 5, 2014. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
On August 21, 2009, Defendant Raymond T. Rittenhouse (hereinafter “defendant”) was the subject of a controlled buy of a stolen firearm. Moments later, he was arrested and taken into federal custody, where he remained.
A grand jury returned a two-count indictment against the defendant on September 2, 2009 charging him with: Count 1, being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and Count 2, unlawful sale of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). (Doc. 1, Indictment).
Defendant pled guilty to Count 2 on February 10, 2010. (Doc. 48, Order accepting guilty plea). While in federal custody, it was discovered that the defendant had an outstanding warrant for an unrelated state probation sentence stemming from a state court conviction on a robbery charge. On December 15, 2009, as a result of the federal conviction, defendant was subject to a state probation violation proceeding in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in which his state probation was revoked and a term of eighteen (18) to thirty-six (36) months of imprisonment was imposed. On this same date, defendant’s federal credit for time spent in federal custody ceased.
From December 15, 2009 through June 21, 2010, defendant remained in federal custody while awaiting a final disposition of the federal charge. On June 21, 2010, the court sentenced defendant to, inter alia, a term of imprisonment of seventy-eight (78) months. (Doc. 65, Judgment). The court ordered that defendant’s term of imprisonment was to run concurrently with his state court sentence. (Id.) On this same date, defendant’s federal credit for time spent in federal custody resumed.
Defendant contends that there is a period of time that he was imprisoned, from December 15, 2009 to June 21, 2010, that has not been applied to any sentence and that the court should take this factor into account. Defendant asks the court to adjust his federal sentence by six months and five days to credit him for this time served.
Defendant filed a motion to amend or correct his judgement and commitment order on January 16, 2014. (Doc. 69, Mot. to Amend/Correct the Judgment & Commitment). In the motion, defendant asserted that the court failed to make a notation in the Judgment of Commitment Imposing Sentence that defendant’s sentence was to be adjusted by six (6) months and five (5) days for the time spent in federal custody from December 15, 2009 to June 21, 2010. (Id.) Defendant averred that the Bureau of Prisons (hereinafter “BOP”) is precluded from granting him credit for the time he spent in presentence detention. (Id.)
On May 5, 2014, the court issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the motion. (Docs. 72, 73). We found that defendant should raise the “credit for time served” issue first with the BOP and pursue any administrative remedies that may be available there. (Doc. 72 at 4). We further indicated that if after pursuing the administrative remedies the defendant remains unsatisfied, the proper course of action is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 - in the district where the defendant is confined. Specifically we explained:
A section 2214 petition must be brought in the district where the defendant is confined. Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43 (2004). According to the docket sheet, defendant is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute-Beckley in Beaver, West Virginia, which is located in Raleigh County, West Virginia. Raleigh County is located within the Southern District of West Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 129(b). The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania thus does not have jurisdiction over the instant dispute, however, that is where defendant filed the instant motion. (Doc. 72 at 4 n.1).
Now, defendant has filed a letter that we construe as a motion for reconsideration, thus brining the case to its present posture.
We have construed defendant’s correspondence as a motion for reconsideration. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 799 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985); Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). For such a motion to be granted, the movant must demonstrate one of the following three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677. A motion for reconsideration ...