United States District Court, S.D. New York
March 8, 2004.
FRANCISCO ROSARIO, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge[fn1] [fn1] Lisa Dudzinski, a spring 2004 intern in my Chambers and a second-year law student at New York Law School, provided substantial assistance in the research and drafting of this opinion.
OPINION & ORDER
Pro se petitioner Francisco Rosario ("petitioner" or
"Rosario") filed the instant habeas corpus petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, Rosario seeks to receive credit
towards his federal sentence for the eighteen months he served in federal
detention after he was transferred from state to federal custody on a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. so that his pending
federal charges could be adjudicated. In the alternative, petitioner
raises what appears to be a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim and challenges the
legality of his sentence, arguing that this Court should have sentenced
him pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.3(b) and
deducted the same eighteen months from his federal sentence. For the
reasons set forth below, Rosario's petition is denied.
Petitioner committed two separate drug offenses in 1990 and 1998. In
1990, Rosario was arrested by the New York City Police Department for
criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. The
proceedings were never concluded*fn2 and the Supreme Court, New York
County issued a bench warrant for Rosario's arrest. Rosario was again
arrested on June 10, 1998 for criminal possession of a controlled
substance in the first degree. Petitioner was returned on the bench
warrant for his 1990 offense and ultimately, on June 12, 1998, was
sentenced to 3 years to life imprisonment. On July 22, 1998, Rosario
began to serve this sentence at Downstate Correctional Facility.
While Rosario was in state custody for his 1990 offense, state and
federal charges were brought against him as a result of his 1998 offense.
The state charges were dismissed,*fn3 and Rosario was indicted for
conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(United States v. Rosario, Indictment, No. 98-CR-1038 (HB)
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 1998)). While still serving his state sentence,
Rosario was transferred into federal custody on October 6, 1998 on a writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to await trial on the federal
charges. Pursuant to this writ, Rosario was detained at Otisville Federal
On May 24, 1999, petitioner appeared before this Court and pleaded
guilty to the 1998 conspiracy indictment. Rosario's then defense counsel,
Lee Ginsberg, Esq., initially argued that Rosario was entitled to a
concurrent sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
("U.S.S.G.") § 5G1.3(b). However, when Mr. Ginsberg learned that
petitioner's two convictions arose from separate offenses in 1990 and
1998, he acknowledged that § 5G1.3(b) no longer applied and instead
requested that the Court use its discretion to sentence Rosario to
concurrent sentences under § 5G1.3(c). This Court then sentenced
Rosario to 120 months imprisonment, to run concurrently with Rosario's
state sentence pursuant to § 5G1.3(c). This Court also imposed a
period of five years supervised release and ordered petitioner to pay the
mandatory special assessment.
Subsequently, Rosario filed a pro se Notice of Appeal, which he later
moved to withdraw on November 16, 2000. On November 29, 2000, the Second
Circuit granted petitioner's motion. Thereafter, Rosario petitioned pro
se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
sought to gain credit for the eighteen months spent in federal detention
prior to his plea of guilty. Rosario initially filed his petition in the
Eastern District of New York. Petitioner's case was transferred from the
Eastern to the Southern District of New York pursuant to Rule 83.3 of
the Local Rules of the Southern and Eastern Districts> of New York,
which provides that, "applications for a writ of habeas corpus made by
persons under the judgment and sentence of a court of the State of New
York shall be filed, heard and determined in the district court for the
district within which they were convicted and sentenced." Local Civil
Rule 83.3; Rosario v. United States, Transfer Order, No.
01-CV-8522 (RR), (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2002).
Petitioner raises two objections to his sentence. First, Rosario argues
that under 18 U.S.C. § 3585 he should receive credit on his federal
sentence for the eighteen months spent in federal detention. Second,
Rosario argues that this Court should have sentenced him under U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3(b) and therefore he is entitled to be re-sentenced. For the
reasons discussed below, this Court has jurisdiction over both claims,
but they nonetheless fail and, accordingly, Rosario's petition is denied.
Although Rosario titled his petition as a "Motion for Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241," in reality, he raises claims under both
§ 2241 and § 2255. As the Second Circuit explained in
Chamber v. United States, §§ 2241 and 2255 address
different types of claims. 106 F.3d 472, 474 (2d Cir. 1997) ("A petitioner
seeking to challenge the legality of the imposition of a
sentence by a court may therefore make a claim pursuant to Section
2255 . . . A challenge to the execution of a sentence, however,
is properly filed pursuant to Section 2241/0 (emphasis in original)
(citation omitted). Rosario first argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3585
he should receive credit on his federal sentence for the eighteen months
spent in federal detention, a claim properly raised in his § 2241
petition. Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir. 2003)
(explaining that § 2241 is the means by which a petitioner can
challenge the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of credit to be give for
other periods of detention). Rosario also asserts what appears to be a
28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim and argues that he is entitled to be
re-sentenced because this Court should have sentenced him under U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3(b). United States v. Werber, 51 F.3d 342, 349 n.7
(2d Cir. 1995) (noting that a claims of error to the original sentence
are properly raised in a § 2255 petition). Because a pro se petition
must be read liberally to encompass the strongest
arguments it suggests, we address both of his claims.
McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999). The
Government argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction over
Rosario's § 2241 claims because he is incarcerated at the
Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, and therefore this
portion of the petition can only be heard in the Eastern District of New
York. For the following reasons, I find that this Court has jurisdiction
over both portions of Rosario's petition.
Motions for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are
properly directed toward "the court which imposed the sentence."
28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides, in pertinent part, that
"[w]rits . . . may be granted by . . . district courts . . .
within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a). Prior
to the Supreme Court's decision Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973), this language was interpreted to
mean that district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue
writs on behalf of prisoners not within their territorial boundaries.
United States ex rel. Sero v. Preisen, 506 F.2d 1115, 1127-28
(2d Cir. 1974). In Braden, however, the Court held that "[s]o
long as the custodian can be reached by service of process, the court can
issue a writ `within its jurisdiction' . . . even if the prisoner
himself is confined outside the court's territorial jurisdiction."
Braden, 410 U.S. at 495 (ruling that a district court in
Kentucky properly issued a writ ordering a new trial for an inmate
incarcerated in Alabama); see also Henderson v. Immigration and
Naturalization Serv., 157 F.3d 106, 122 (2d Cir. 1998). The Second
Circuit interpreted Braden to mean that the jurisdictional
grant in § 2241(a) is "coextensive with the scope of service of
process." Preiser, 506 F.2d at 1128 (deciding that a district
court had jurisdiction over a state-wide class of habeas corpus
petitioners that included members detained outside the district). Under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(e) and 4(k)(1)(A), the scope of this
Court's service of process extends at least to parties located in the
State of New York. Brooks v. Strack, No. 98-CV-6528, 1999 WL
672949, at *3 (E.D.N.Y Aug. 25, 1999) (finding that the Eastern District
Court had jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner was detained in the
Southern District of New York). Therefore, the fact that Rosario was
incarcerated within the Eastern District of New York is of no moment and
this Court, in the interests of judicial economy, can decide all issues
raised in his petition. Bellomo v. United States, No.
03-GV-2627, 2003 WL 22331878, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2003)
(determining that a the district court for the Southern District of
New York could hear a § 2241 petition where the petitioner's
custodian was located in the Eastern District of New York).
B. Petitioner's 28 U.S.C § 2241 Claim
A writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 is available to
prisoners who challenge the execution their sentence. Carmona v.
Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 633 (2d Cir. 2001) (deciding
petitioner's § 2241 claim was proper because he was seeking credit
for prior time spent in detention). Courts in this district have held
that claims regarding sentencing credit, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3585, constitute a challenge to the execution of the
sentence. E.g. Kaiser v. United States, No. 00-CV-5718, 2001 WL 237382, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2001) (ruling that § 2241 is a proper claim for
which to raise sentencing credit challenges); Garrett v.
Menifee, No. OO-CV-8274, 2001 WL 170678, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
21, 2001) (same). Since Petitioner disputes a sentencing credit, his
claim constitutes a challenge to the execution of the sentence and,
accordingly, § 2241 is the "proper vehicle for review." United
States v. Maldonado, 138 F. Supp.2d 328, 332 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).
It is well established that the Bureau of Prisons, not the courts,
decides whether the petitioner should receive credit for any prior time
spent in custody. United States v. Montez-Gaviria,
163 F.3d 697, 700-1 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that the Bureau of Prisons,
not the district court, is responsible for determining sentencing credit);
United States v. Casanova, No. 91-CR-312, 1995 WL 387714, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Jun. 30, 1995) (dismissing defendant's application for credit
because she failed to first seek relief through the Bureau of Prisons).
Thus, because Rosario asserts a § 2241 claim, it is up to the Bureau
of Prisons, not the district courts, to determine whether credit should
be given for prior time spent in custody pursuant to § 3585.
Nevertheless, if a defendant disputes the Bureau of Prison's
determination of credit, after he `exhausts all administrative remedies,
Beharry v. Reno, 329 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 2003), he may seek
judicial review by of the decision by filing a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Rosemond v. Menifee,
137 F. Supp.2d 270, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Rosario satisfied the exhaustion
requirement when he applied to the Bureau of Prisons seeking credit. His
claim must nonetheless be denied because the Bureau of Prisons had
already credited the eighteen months spent at Otisville Federal Detention
Center towards his state sentence and he cannot receive the
same credit towards his federal sentence because the two
convictions are unrelated.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585, a defendant is entitled to credit toward
the term of imprisonment if the defendant, prior to the commencement of
the sentence, has spent time in official detention as a result of: (1)
the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or (2) any other charge
for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense
for which the sentence was imposed, so long as it has not been credited
towards another sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v.
Labeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir. 1998) (deciding that a district
court lacks authority under § 3585(b) to credit a defendant's federal
sentence for time that has already been credited towards a state
The first subsection of § 3585 on which petitioner relies is not
applicable because his convictions arose from two different offenses.
Rosario's arrest in 1998 resulted in two separate sentences: one for his
1990 state possession offense because he had been a fugitive since 1990
and for his 1998 federal conspiracy charge. The Government and petitioner
agree that the eighteen months Rosario spent in federal detention, was
already credited toward his state sentence, thus rendering the second
subsection of § 3585 inapplicable as well. As the Second Circuit
decided in Werber v. United States, a petitioner has "no right
to credit on his federal sentence for time that has been credited against
his prior state sentence," because § 3585 precludes a petitioner from
receiving double credit. 149 F.3d 172, 173 (2d Cir. 1998); see
also Tisdale v. Menifee, 166 F. Supp.2d 789, 792 (S.D.N.Y.
2001) (deciding that petitioner's claim for credit for time served in
federal custody "must be dismissed because he has already received state
credit for the time served under the federal detainer"). Thus, if time
spent in detention has already been credited to a state or federal
sentence, that petitioner is explicitly barred from applying that time to
another sentence. Werber, 149 F.3d at 173.
This reasoning makes sense when the purpose of Rosario's transfer to
federal custody is made clear. On October 6, 1998, petitioner was
transferred into federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum. When a prisoner is produced for prosecution in
federal court pursuant to this writ, the state retains primary
jurisdiction over the prisoner. United States v. Smith,
812 F. Supp. 368, 370 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that petitioner could not
receive credit toward his federal sentence for time spent in federal
custody because the time spent in detention was part of his
state sentence). This rule is derived from the notion that the
prisoner is on "loan" to the federal authorities; Id. at 372:
see also United States v. Fermin, 252 F.3d 102, 108
n.10 (2d Cir. 2001) ("a defendant held at a federal detention facility is
not-in custody' . . . when he is produced through a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum").
Thus, despite the writ, Rosario remained in state custody when he came
to Otisville Federal Detention Center and was still serving his state
sentence. The eighteen months Rosario spent at Otisville Federal
Detention Center were credited towards his state sentence because Rosario
was on "loan" to the federal authorities so his federal charges could be
adjudicated. As a result, Rosario is unable to receive additional credit
towards his federal sentence because § 3583(b) precludes defendants
from receiving "double credit" for time on both his federal and state
sentences. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992)
(deciding that § 3585(b) restricts sentencing credits to time that
has not been credited against another sentence to ensure that a defendant
does not receive double credit). The Bureau of Prisons properly deducted
the time Rosario spent in federal detention from his state sentence
because Rosario was serving his state sentence while he was on loan to
the federal authorities. As a result, petitioner's claim must be denied.
C. Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Claim
In the alternative, Rosario asserts a § 2255 claim regarding the
legality of his sentence because Rosario seeks to challenge the
execution of his sentence. Petitioner's § 2255 claim is both
time and procedurally barred. A one-year statute of limitations applies
to motions made pursuant to § 2255, which begins on the date that a
petitioner's conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(1). Rosario's
judgment became final on November 29, 2000 the date when the
Second Circuit granted his motion to withdraw his appeal. Rosario did not
file his petition until December 11, 2001. Even if Rosario's petition
ware timely, he would nevertheless be procedurally barred because he
failed to address the legality of the sentence on appeal, but instead
chose to withdraw his appeal. United States v. Perez,
129 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding petitioner is procedurally barred
from asserting a § 2255 claim unless he does so on direct appeal).
Even if Rosario's § 2255 claim could be considered on the merits,
it would nonetheless fail because there was no error in his sentence.
Petitioner claims that he should be resentenced in accordance with
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b).
Under § 5G1.3(b), if convictions arise from the same course of
conduct, district courts may reduce the later sentence to account for the
amount of time already served, on the prior, undischarged sentence, thus
enabling the sentences to run concurrently and terminate at the same
time. The purpose of § 5G1.3(b) is to ensure that petitioner is
properly credited for the time served for the related crime.
Here, it would be inappropriate to apply § SG1.3(b) because
Rosario's convictions arose from two completely unrelated offenses. When
this Court sentenced petitioner for his 1 998 conspiracy charge, his 1
990 possession offense was only taken into consideration when determining
his criminal history category. I sentenced petitioner under §
561.3(c) because Rosario's convictions arose from separate criminal
conduct. This provision allows a sentencing court to use discretion
when imposing sentences concurrently, to "achieve a reasonable punishment
for the instant offense." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). Based on
this provision, Rosario was sentenced at the lowest end of the
applicable guidelines range to a term of imprisonment of 120 months,
which was ordered to run concurrently with the state sentence Rosario
was already serving.
Petitioner's reliance on United States v. Gonzalez,
192 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 1999) is misplaced. There the convictions arose from the
same course of criminal conduct, whereas Rosario's convictions stemmed
from unrelated criminal conduct, thus rendering § 5G1.3(b)
inapposite. Accordingly, petitioner's § 2255 claim is denied.
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's habeas corpus petition is
denied. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case and
remove it from my docket.
THIS CONSITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
*fn2 Rosario was apparently a fugitive from 1990 until 1998. (Gov't
Mem. Opp. at 2 n.1.)
*fn3 It is unclear why the states charges were dismissed. According to
the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"), Rosario's 1998 state
charges were "[d]ismissed due to conviction on unrelated case" on August
11, 1998. (PSR at 11.) The date of this disposition suggests that the
charges were dismissed because of Rosario's conviction for his 1990
offense, given that Rosario was not indicted until September 24, 1998 and
he was not sentenced until May 24, 1999. The Government, however, asserts
that these charges were dismissed because of the pending federal
indictment for the same conduct (Gov't Mem. Opp. at 2.)
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.