Robert Joseph Dale Clinkenbeard v. Katie Murdock

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3127
___________________________
Robert Joseph Dale Clinkenbeard
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant
v.
Katie Murdock
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 19, 2025
Filed: March 27, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Clinkenbeard appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition seeking to compel the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to allow him to earn First
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I.
Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

Step Act (FSA) time credits. In 2018, Clinkenbeard pleaded guilty to three offenses
and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences and a consecutive 60-month sentence
for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The BOP aggregated his sentences and determined he was
ineligible to earn FSA credits based on his section 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(xxii). Clinkenbeard argues that he has completed his sentence for
the section 924(c) offense and is therefore eligible to earn FSA credits against his
other two sentences.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Clinkenbeard’s petition, as the BOP correctly treated his prison terms as a single
aggregate sentence for all 3 offenses, and therefore properly denied him FSA credits.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c) (multiple terms of imprisonment ordered to run
consecutively or concurrently shall be treated for administrative purposes as a single,
aggregate term of imprisonment); Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir.
2014) (de novo review of dismissal of § 2241 petition).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --