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.

Jemison v. Oddo

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 1, 2019

TERRY JEMISON, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN ODDO, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM

          A. RICHARD CAPUTO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before me is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) filed by Petitioner Terry Jemison (“Petitioner”). Specifically, Petitioner claims that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) incorrectly computed the time remaining on his sentence. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be denied.

         I. Background

         Petitioner, Terry L. Jemison/Dexter Lorantho Jemison, was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on November 15, 1995 of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (See Teters Decl., ¶ 3 & p. 12). The district court sentenced Petitioner to a 52 month term of imprisonment and three (3) years of supervised released. (See id.).

         On January 19, 2000, Petitioner was arrested in Peoria, Illinois for bank robbery, and he remained in the custody of the United States Marshals Service through sentencing. (See Teters Decl., ¶ 4 & Attach. “1”, 2). Petitioner pled guilty to armed bank robbery and using/carrying a firearm during a crime of violence in the Central District of Illinois. (See Teters Decl., Attach. “2”, 2). On December 21, 2000, Petitioner was sentenced to 168 months on the armed bank robbery charge and 84 months on the firearm charge. (See id. at Attach. “2”, 3). The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for an aggregate term of 252 months. (See id.). The same day, Petitioner, having admitted to violating his term of supervision from his 1995 conviction, was sentenced to “24 months, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in [the armed bank robbery case] CD/IL No. 00-10007-002.” (See id. at Attach. “3”, 2-3).

         In the instant petition, filed on March 30, 2018, Petitioner contends that the “sentence computation monitoring data” is incorrect in that it shows that he has to complete the 24 month term when he claims that this time has already been served. (See Doc. 1, ¶¶ 5-6).

         In response to the petition, the BOP completed a sentence computation. (See Teters Decl., ¶¶ 9-14). Regarding the 2000 conviction, Petitioner received prior custody credit from January 19, 2000, his date of arrest, until December 20, 2000, the day he was sentenced, for a total of 337 days. (See id. at ¶ 10 & Attach. “5”, 4). Petitioner's projected statutory release date from that sentence is September 26, 2020. (See id.). This sentence was imposed in 2000 pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”). (See id. at ¶ 11 & Attach. “5”, 2-3 (identifying “PLRA sentence” as the “sentence procedure”)).

         The BOP also completed a sentence computation for the conviction for Petitioner's violation of the terms of his supervised release. (See Teters Decl., ¶ 12). This 24 month sentence begins on the date Petitioner completes his sentence from the armed bank robbery case, so the computation prepared by the BOP indicates that this sentence is to commence on September 26, 2020. (See id. at Attach. “7”, 3). Petitioner's current projected satisfaction date is June 23, 2022. (See id.). Petitioner's 1995 conviction was imposed under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“VCCLEA”). (See id. at ¶ 11 & Attach. “7”, 2).

         Petitioner filed a traverse to the Government's opposition. (See Doc. 10, generally). Therein, Petitioner reiterates his view that the BOP has incorrectly calculated his sentence. (See id.).

         The petition has now been fully briefed, so it is ripe for disposition.

         II. Legal Standard

         28 U.S.C. § 2241 vests federal district courts with jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus to persons in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Habeas corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal prisoner to challenge the ‘execution' of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). Review is available “where the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).

         III. Discussion

         Petitioner's challenge to the BOP's calculation of his sentence is properly brought pursuant to § 2241. See Eiland v. Warden Fort Dix FCI, 634 Fed.Appx. 87, 89 (3d Cir. 2015). The Attorney General, through the BOP, is responsible for administering a federal inmate's sentence and computing the credit to be awarded for time spent in official detention prior to the commencement of the sentence. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)). The BOP's decision is subject to judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009). The two major factors in a federal sentencing calculation are: (1) when the ...


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.