Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Brogdon

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division

August 29, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KIMBERLY BROGDON

ORDER

RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for a nunc pro tunc designation and transfer to federal prison. (Doc. no. 135.) For the reasons set forth below, this motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2013, Defendant was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons. (Doc. no. 99.) On January 21, 2014, Defendant was sentenced on unrelated state charges to 24 months imprisonment in Florida state prison. (Doc. no. 135 at 6.) Defendant was transferred to the Florida Department of Corrections to begin her state sentence on March 11, 2014. (Id. at 1-2.) On May 5, 2014, Defendant filed the above-referenced motion. (Doc. no. 135.) Defendant asks the Court to order a nunc pro tunc designation directing that her federal sentence run concurrent with her state sentence and that she be transferred to federal prison. (Id. at 2.) Defendant is currently confined at the Gadsden Correctional Facility in Quincy, Florida.

II. DISCUSSION

A court may not modify a sentence once it has been imposed however. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). In particular, neither Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 nor U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 permit the requested relief. Matters of credit for time served and other length of sentence determinations are better directed to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and not this Court. Indeed, the BOP has the power to designate the housing state facility nunc pro tunc as the place of federal confinement so that a defendant may gain credit against a federal sentence for the time served in the state facility. However, this is a decision within the discretion of the BOP.[1]

Moreover, any judicial challenge to the BOP's decision must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement rather than in the sentencing court. Thus, to pursue her claims, Defendant would need to file a section 2241 petition. Yet, even if the Court were to liberally construe Defendant's motion as a section 2241 petition, it would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not brought in the district in which Defendant is incarcerated - the Northern District of Florida - and because Defendant has failed to show that she exhausted her administrative remedies. See United States v. Pruitt, 417 Fed.Appx. 903, 904 (11th Cir. 2011).

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion (doc. no. 135) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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