Rasheen Johnson v. WARDEN BRYAN BLEDSOE On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1124
___________
RASHEEN JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN BRYAN BLEDSOE
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 08-01989)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 14, 2009
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 14, 2009 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Rasheen Johnson appeals from an order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his petition for writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

-- 1 of 6 --

He was confined at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania1
(“USP Lewisburg”), at the time he filed the § 2241 petition.
2
Johnson is currently confined at the Canaan United States Penitentiary in
Waymart, Pennsylvania. On November 3, 2008, Johnson filed a § 2241 petition claiming1
that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) failed to credit his sentence for the time period from
January 13, 2003 (when he was transferred from State custody to federal custody to face
trial on federal charges) through December 18, 2003 (the date he was sentenced on his
federal conviction).
In September 2001, while Johnson was on parole on a state conviction, he was
arrested in Missouri for unlawful use of a firearm, a violation of state law. Shortly
thereafter, the State released Johnson on bond and later nolle prossed the charge. His
release was short-lived, however, because he was arrested in October 2001, and taken into
state custody on a parole violation warrant issued by the Missouri Department of
Probation and Parole.
In January 2002, while he was in state custody on the parole violation, Johnson
was indicted in the Eastern District of Missouri on the federal charge of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. On January 13, 2003, he was transferred from State custody to
Federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for trial. He was
found guilty by a jury thereafter and he was sentenced on December 18, 2003, to ninety
months of imprisonment. The federal sentencing court recommended that Johnson’s

-- 2 of 6 --

3
federal sentence commence immediately so that it would run concurrently with his state
parole violation sentence. The Missouri Department of Corrections was designated as
Johnson’s place of confinement for purposes of his federal sentence. Johnson served his
state and federal sentences concurrently in the state prison until June 1, 2004. On June 1,
the Missouri Department of Corrections gave Johnson credit for the time he spent in
federal custody from January 13, 2003, through December 18, 2003, and released him on
parole. He was thereafter transferred to the custody of federal authorities to serve the
remainder of his federal sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville,
Illinois, and then USP Lewisburg.
In his § 2241 petition, Johnson asserted that he had requested at his federal
sentencing that the judge order his sentence to begin immediately so that the Bureau of
Prisons could give him credit for the year that he spent in federal custody awaiting trial.
In support of his contention, Johnson attached a copy of the federal Judgment in which
the sentencing court ordered the federal sentence to “begin immediately.” Johnson sought
credit “for all the time he spent in the Federal Detention Center,” from January 13, 2003
through December 18, 2003. He argued that credit should be given because the state
conviction underlying his parole violation was vacated. The BOP responded and Johnson
filed a traverse, asserting that the State of Missouri no longer had primary custody of him
when he was transferred to the Federal Detention Center pursuant to a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum on January 13, 2003. He also contended that his state

-- 3 of 6 --

4
conviction had been dismissed by the state court pursuant to the grant of state habeas
corpus relief in May 2004, and he attached a copy of a state court order in support of his
contention.
The District Court denied § 2241 relief, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) barred
Johnson from receiving credit towards his federal sentence for time served from January
13, 2003, through December 17, 2003, because the Missouri Department of Corrections
had credited his state parole violation sentence for the same time period. The court
rejected Johnson’s argument that the State of Missouri lacked primary custody as of
January 13, 2003, noting that the state remained the primary custodian when Johnson was
in federal custody pursuant to a writ ad prosequendum, because the state did not
relinquish its jurisdiction over the him. See Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257, 274 (3d Cir.
2000) (overruled on other grounds). The District Court also rejected Johnson’s
contention that the state had no lawful jurisdiction over him during the time period in
question because the state conviction underlying his parole violation was dismissed in
2004. The court noted that the state court order Johnson submitted in support of his
contention established only that his state sentence was corrected to run concurrently with
another state sentence, and thus it had no bearing on the federal sentence. Johnson filed
this timely appeal.
We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As the issues here
are legal in nature, we exercise plenary review. Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 479

-- 4 of 6 --

5
(3d Cir. 1990). The authority to calculate a federal prisoner’s period of incarceration for
the sentence imposed and to provide credit for time served is delegated to the Attorney
General, who acts through the BOP. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35
(1992). We may correct an error by the BOP through a writ of habeas corpus where that
error is fundamental and carries a serious potential for a miscarriage of justice. Barden,
921 F.2d at 479. We have carefully reviewed the record and we fully agree with the
District Court’s reasoning and conclusion that the BOP could not commence Johnson’s
federal sentence before December 18, 2003. A federal sentence commences when the
defendant is received by the Attorney General for service of his federal sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3585(a). See also United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1119 (3d Cir.
1990). By designating the Missouri Department of Corrections as the place for Johnson’s
federal sentence to be served initially, the BOP gave effect to the federal sentencing
judge’s decision that Johnson’s federal sentence begin immediately. Johnson wanted to
be credited for time served in state custody before he was sentenced on his federal
conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) prohibits the BOP from awarding credit for time spent in
state custody prior to the imposition of a federal sentence. See Wilson, 503 U.S. at 337
(explaining that Congress made it clear in § 3585(b) that a defendant could not receive
double credit for his detention time). Johnson was not entitled to any credit against his
federal sentence for the time spent in the Federal Detention Center pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum from January 13, 2003, to December 17, 2003, because

-- 5 of 6 --

Johnson argues that crediting his federal sentence with time served for the time2
period in question does not result in double-crediting because the federal sentencing
judge ordered that the federal sentence run concurrently with his state parole violation
sentence and the BOP designated the Missouri Department of Corrections as the place of
his confinement for purposes of his federal sentence. (See Informal Brf. at 9). He does
not address the most important fact, which is that the Missouri Department of Corrections
had already credited the time he served toward the parole violation sentence.
6
the Missouri Department of Corrections had credited the same time period towards his
state parole violation sentence.2
Johnson reiterates on appeal that his state conviction underlying his parole
violation sentence was dismissed and therefore, the state lacked lawful authority to hold
him in primary custody from January 13, 2003 through December 17, 2003. We agree
with the District Court’s conclusion that Johnson’s argument is meritless. The court order
Johnson submitted in the District Court shows only that his state sentence was corrected,
not vacated or dismissed.
Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court denying Johnson’s
habeas corpus petition.

-- 6 of 6 --