United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jones Richardson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, docs. 1 & 160,
was sentenced to 70 months' imprisonment, doc. 235.
Nothing in either the plea agreement or judgment indicated
that his federal sentence should be served concurrently to
any sentence to be later imposed by the state of Georgia.
See docs. 1 & 235.
was remanded back to state custody, see doc. 19
(writ of habeas corpus to procure him from state custody for
federal proceedings), and three months later he was sentenced
by a state court to 12 years' incarceration on related
charges, to be served concurrently with his federal sentence.
Doc. 327 at 4; see also http://www.dcor.state.ga.us
/GDC/Offender/Query (noting 3 concurrent sentences for
possession with intent to distribute and trafficking of
methamphetamine). He has begun serving his state sentence at
Coffee Correctional Facility, in Coffee County, Georgia, and
asks the Court to order his “federal time to run
concurrently with the state time” through a 28 U.S.C.
§2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence. Doc. 327 at 4.
§ 2255 offers Richardson no succor here. That section
only permits a challenge to the validity of the federal
conviction or sentence itself, and Richardson mounts no such
challenge. Thus, he must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
which allows challenges to the execution of a
federal sentence, rather than its validity. See Antone
li v. Warden, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th
Cir. 2006); Bishop v. Reno, 210 F.3d 1295, 1304
(11th Cir. 2000). But Richardson has no such claim.
asks for his federal sentence to be rewritten to be served
concurrently with his state sentence, which he is now
serving. But nothing in his federal sentence suggests that it
is to be served concurrently with any state sentence, and his
later-imposed state sentence cannot alter the federal
sentence. See Bloomgren v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688,
691 (10th Cir. 1991). Because Richardson's federal
sentence does not affirmatively order concurrent service of
his federal and state sentences, it has not been executed
unlawfully. He has no claim for relief this Court can
provide, and his motion should be DISMISSED with
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App'x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 The Court is citing to the criminal
docket in CR616-010 unless otherwise noted, and all page
numbers are those imprinted by the Court's docketing
 That is not to say that Richardson
lacks administrative options for the relief he seeks. He may
ask his state custodians to request the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) to designate the state institution as the place to
serve his federal sentence concurrently with his state
sentence. BOP Program Statement 5160.05(9)(b)(5)
State Request. Occasionally, a Regional Office
receives a request from a state jurisdiction indicating that
the state and federal sentences are to be served
concurrently, whether by state court order or department of
(a) The [Regional Inmate Systems Administrator (RISA)]
will gather and review all information pertaining to the
federal and state sentences. After reviewing this information
carefully, if necessary, the RISA will correspond with the
federal sentencing court to ascertain whether it has any
objections to the federal and state sentences running
concurrently. A courtesy copy of this correspondence will be
forwarded to the appropriate U.S. Attorney. . . .
(b) If the court has no objections, the state
institution may be designated as the place to serve the
federal sentence concurrently with the state sentence,
according to the procedures ...