Hachem v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED 	STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Marwan Hachem
v. 	Case 	No. 22-cv-233-LM
FCI Berlin Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Marwan Hachem, 	a federal prisoner who 	was incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution 	in Berlin, New 	Hampshire (“FCI
Berlin”), 	has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc.
No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. 	§ 2241, challenging 	the Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ (“BOP”) determination that his immigration detainer 	made
him ineligible 	for the 	application of 	First Step Act earned time
sentencing credits. 	Petitioner asked 	this 	court to direct the BOP
to recalculate 	his sentence 	and release date so 	that he 	could be
released early 	from BOP custody to begin his term of supervised
release. 	The parties’ cross-motions for summary 	judgment are
before this court 	(Doc. Nos. 5, 9).
A 	prisoner’s release from BOP custody 	moots his 	§ 2241
petition challenging the calculation of his time credits and 	the
length of 	the imprisonment component of his sentence. 	See Francis
v. Maloney, 798 F.3d 33, 38 	(1st 	Cir. 	2015). 	This 	court cannot
backdate the date 	of a 	prisoner’s actual release from physical
confinement to 	compensate for excess time served, to shorten 	his
term 	of supervised release. 	See 	id. at 39.
Case 1:22-cv-00233-LM Document 11 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2

2
The BOP Online 	Inmate Locater states that the BOP released Mr.
Hachem from BOP custody on December 9, 2022. 	Accordingly, the
district judge 	should deny Mr. Hachem’s § 2241 petition, and 	the
cross-motions for 	summary judgment, as mooted by his release.
Conclusion
For the foregoing 	reasons, the magistrate judge 	recommends
that 	the § 2241 petition (Doc. No. 1), and 	the cross-motions 	for
summary judgment (Doc. 	Nos. 	5, 9), be 	denied as 	moot. 	The district
judge should direct the Clerk to 	enter judgment 	and close the case.
Any objections 	to 	this 	Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	The objection
period may be extended 	upon 	motion. 	Failure to 	file any objection
within the specified time waives 	the right 	to appeal the district
court’s Order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163,
168 (1st Cir. 2016). 	Only those 	issues raised in the written
objections “‘are subject to 	review in 	the district 	court,’” and any
issues “‘not preserved 	by such objection are precluded on
appeal.’” 	Id. 	(citations omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. 	Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
January 18, 2023
cc: 	Marwan Hachem, 	pro se
Heather A. Cherniske, Esq.
Case 1:22-cv-00233-LM Document 11 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2