USA v. Fergerson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMERON FERGERSON,
Defendant. 	Case No. 3:14-cr-00025-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION TO CLARIFY
Before the Court at Docket 38 is Defendant Cameron Fergerson’s Motion to Clarify
Sentence Imposed. The Government did not file any response to the motion.
BACKGROUND
On February 25 and March 1, 2014, Cameron Fergerson robbed two banks of a
total of $3,678.00.1
On March 3, 2014, Mr. Fergerson was arrested for alleged probation violations in
connection with State of Alaska case no. 3AN-12-12691 CR, for conduct unrelated to the
instant case.2 The original offense in that case occurred on December 3, 2012.3 In April
2013, Mr. Fergerson was sentenced by the state court to 36 months, with 30 months
suspended on Count 1, and 20 days on Count 2.4 Mr. Fergerson’s March 3, 2014 arrest
1 Docket 22 (PSR) at 1.
2 Docket 22 at 5. 	In case no. 3AN-12-12691 CR, Mr. Fergerson was convicted of Theft in the
Second Degree and Violating Conditions of Release. See Docket 22 at 17.
3 Docket 22 at 17.
4 Docket 22 at 17.
Case 3:14-cr-00025-SLG Document 39 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:14-cr-00025-SLG, United States v. Fergerson
Order re Motion to Clarify
Page 2 of 4
stemmed from allegations that he violated his conditions of probation by failing to report
to 	the 	probation 	officer, 	ingesting 	opiates 	and 	marijuana, 	and 	possessing 	drug
paraphernalia.5
Meanwhile, on March 10, 2014, a Criminal Complaint was filed in this Court against
Mr. Fergerson for the events of February 25 and March 1, 2014, alleging bank robbery
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113.6 	On March 19, 2014, an Indictment was filed alleging
the two counts of bank robbery.7 	On April 17, 2014, Mr. Fergerson pled guilty to both
counts.8 On July 10, 2014, Mr. Fergerson was sentenced to a below guidelines sentence
of 60 months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years’ supervised release.9 	At the
sentencing hearing, there was no discussion of the pending state probation violation
proceedings.
In the state case, on December 1, 2014, Mr. Fergerson was found to have violated
the conditions of probation and was ordered to serve the 30 months that had originally
been suspended.10 	Mr. Fergerson has been in custody since his arrest on March 3,
2014.11
5 Docket 22 at 18.
6 Docket 1 (Compl.).
7 Docket 10 (Indictment).
8 Docket 20 (Minute Entry re Change of Plea Hr’g).
9 Docket 29 (J.). The sentence of 60 months was below the guideline range of 77 to 96 months,
based on a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of VI. 	See Docket 30
(Statement of Reasons) at 1; Docket 22 at 24.
10 Docket 38-1 (Order to Revoke Probation). The state court order issued on December 1, 2014
referenced an amended petition to revoke probation. 	It is not clear what was alleged in the
amended petition. Cf. Docket 22 at 17–18, ¶ 54.
11 Docket 22 at 3. Because Mr. Fergerson’s initial arrest occurred as a result of the state probation
Case 3:14-cr-00025-SLG Document 39 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:14-cr-00025-SLG, United States v. Fergerson
Order re Motion to Clarify
Page 3 of 4
DISCUSSION
Mr. Fergerson asserts that the Bureau of Prisons “incorrectly calculated the term
of [his] imprisonment” by setting his release date as April 10, 2020.12 	Mr. Fergerson
asserts that his 60-month sentence “should have begun on the date of his arraignment
on these charges, March 20, 2014, or the date of his arrest which was March 10, 2014.”13
He contends that “[a]t the very latest his federal sentence should have begun” on July 10,
2014, the date of his sentencing in this case.14 	Accordingly, he asks this Court to
retroactively “exercise its discretion to order a concurrent sentence.”15
Mr. Fergerson was sentenced in this case on July 10, 2014. His motion does not
specify the basis upon which he is seeking relief, but no apparent bases are now
available. 	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), within 14 days of the
entry of a criminal judgment, a court may “correct a sentence that resulted from
arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(b), a sentence
may be reduced upon the Government’s motion after 14 days but only if the reduction is
due to the defendant’s substantial assistance and other specific circumstances apply,
violation charge3s against him, he has evidently been in state custody since March 3, 2014. It
appears he began serving his federal sentence in this case no sooner than April 10, 2015. See
infra note 12.
12 Docket 38 at 1. This release date indicates that, according to BOP, Mr. Fergerson began serving
his federal sentence no sooner than April 10, 2015, as he was sentenced to serve 60 months,
minus any reduction for good behavior.
13 Docket 38 at 2.
14 Docket 38 at 2.
15 Docket 38 at 3.
Case 3:14-cr-00025-SLG Document 39 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:14-cr-00025-SLG, United States v. Fergerson
Order re Motion to Clarify
Page 4 of 4
none of which are applicable here.16 	Furthermore, Mr. Fergerson’s motion would be
untimely even if it were brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which applies a one-year
statute of limitations.17 Therefore, Mr. Fergerson’s motion is untimely.
Mr. Fergerson cites Setser v. United States for the proposition that a district court
may order that a federal sentence run concurrently with an anticipated state sentence
that has not yet been imposed.18 	However, the concurrent sentence must have been
ordered at the time that the federal sentence was entered, which in this case occurred
more than three years prior to Mr. Fergerson’s motion.19 And here, there is no indication
that 	the 	Court 	at 	sentencing 	intended 	Mr. 	Fergerson’s 	federal 	sentence 	to 	run
concurrently 	with 	a 	potential 	sentence 	resulting 	from 	the 	unrelated 	then-pending
probation violation state court proceeding.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Clarify at Docket 38 is DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2018.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b).
17 18 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
18 Docket 38 at 2–3 (citing Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012)).
19 See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (“Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run
consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.”).
Case 3:14-cr-00025-SLG Document 39 Filed 04/02/18 Page 4 of 4