United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
HOWARD O. KIEFFER, Petitioner,
WARDEN JUAN BALTAZAR, Respondent.
JOHN E. JONES, III, District Judge.
Howard O. Kieffer, formerly an inmate confined in the Allenwood Low Security United States Penitentiary in White Deer, Pennsylvania,  filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Kieffer argues that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has erred in calculating his federal sentence. Id. He therefore requests that this Court order his immediate release from custody. Id. The petition is ripe for disposition and, for the reasons set forth below, will be dismissed.
In 2008, Kieffer was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota for mail fraud and making false statement "arising from his conduct of posing as a licensed criminal defense attorney." United States v. Kieffer, No. 13-1371, 2014 WL 7238565, at *1 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014). Kieffer was sentenced to fifty-one months of imprisonment (the "North Dakota sentence"). Id. In 2009, Kieffer was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Sentencing Court") for wire fraud, making false statements, and contempt of court. Id. On August 16, 2010, the Sentencing Court sentenced Kieffer to fifty-seven months imprisonment, to be served consecutive to his previous North Dakota sentence. Id.
Kieffer appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Id. at *2. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated Kieffer's sentence and remanded for resentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). Id. On August 22, 2013, the Sentencing Court conducted a resentencing hearing. Id. At that hearing, the Sentencing Court ruled that Kieffer
is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 99 months on Counts 1 and 2. The terms of imprisonment in this case are to be served concurrently to one another and also concurrent to the 51 months of imprisonment that was imposed upon and served by defendant in [connection to his North Dakota sentence].
Just to make it clear, it is the Court's intent that the defendant be incarcerated for a term of 48 months for the criminal conduct he was convicted of in Counts 1 and 2 in this case. So that's 99 months less or adjusted by the 51 months that he served in North Dakota for a total of 48 months.
Id. at *2-3.
In its written Order issued September 3, 2013, the Sentencing Court stated that Kieffer's ninety-nine month sentence was to be adjusted by subtracting fifty-one months based on time already served, for a total forty-eight month sentence to be served concurrent with the North Dakota sentence. Id. at *3. After noticing that this Order unintentionally resulted in Kieffer serving only an additional eight month sentence, rather than the intended forty-eight months, on September 5, 2013, the Sentencing Court issued a Second Amended Judgment in an attempt to correct the error. Id. Thereafter, the Sentencing Court issued two further Amended Judgments on March 26, 2014 and April 4, 2014 in further attempts to correctly impose the intended sentence. Id. at *4-5.
On May 19, 2014, Kieffer filed a motion with the Tenth Circuit to vacate the Sentencing Court's Amended Judgments. (Doc. 10, Ex. 6). On August 7, 2014, while his appeal was pending with the Tenth Circuit, Kieffer filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the BOP was improperly implementing his sentence. (Doc. 1).
On December 22, 2014, the Tenth Circuit granted Kieffer's motion, finding that the Sentencing Court did not have authority to enter the Amended Judgments. Kieffer, 2014 WL 7238565, at *7. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit vacated the Sentencing Court's Amended Judgments, and remanded with instructions for "the district court to enter a new and final judgment[.]" Id. at *8. As a result, on February 20, 2015, the Sentencing Court imposed a new and final judgment, sentencing Kieffer to eighty-eight months imprisonment, to run concurrent with the North Dakota sentence. (Doc. 22, Ex. 2).
A challenge to the execution of a federal prisoner's sentence by the Bureau of Prisons may properly be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241-42 (3d Cir. 2005); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001)). However, where a prisoner challenges the validity of the sentence rather than its execution, such a challenge is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Coady, 251 F.3d at 485.
Here, the Sentencing Court has sentenced Kieffer to imprisonment for eighty-eight months. (Doc. 22, Ex. 2). This sentence effectively commenced on August 16, 2010, the date of Kieffer's initial sentencing. See, Blood v. Bledsoe, 648 F.3d 203, 208-09 (3d Cir. 2011). This means that, excluding good conduct time, Kieffer's sentence will end on December 16, 2017. Despite ...