USA v. Wood

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:08-cr-00021-MR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
MICHAEL ROY WOOD, )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Clarify
Sentence Structure [Doc. 35].
The Defendant was sentenced by this Court on January 29, 2009 to a
term of 180 months’ imprisonment.1 [Doc. 19]. The Defendant contends that
subsequent to being sentenced by this Court, he was sentenced in both a
state case in Florida and a federal case in Georgia, and that both of these
subsequent sentences were intended to run concurrently with the sentence
imposed by this Court. The Defendant remains in state custody and seeks
1 The Defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Lacy H. Thornburg. Upon Judge
Thornburg’s retirement, this matter was assigned to the undersigned.
Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 36 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 3

2
clarification as to the status of the sentence imposed by this Court. The
Defendant also seeks credit for time served prior to his conviction. [Doc. 35].
The Attorney General, not the sentencing court, is responsible for
computing a prisoner’s sentence credit. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S.
329, 335 (1992). A prisoner seeking review of the computation of his
sentence credit must first seek administrative review of that computation
through the Bureau of Prisoners. Only after such administrative remedies
have been exhausted can a prisoner then seek judicial review of his
sentence computation. Id. Further, because “[a] claim for credit against a
sentence attacks the computation and execution of a sentence rather than
the sentence itself,” United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989),
such claims must be raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of
confinement. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. §
2241(a).
Accordingly, the Defendant should address his inquiry regarding the
status of his sentence to the Bureau of Prisons. Once the BOP
administrative remedies have been exhausted, he may seek judicial review
in the district of his confinement.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Clarify
Sentence Structure [Doc. 35] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 36 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 3, 2015
Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 36 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 3