Fuimaona v. Hudson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                   FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            April 23, 2021
    _________________________________
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    Clerk of Court
    SILIAIVAOESE FUIMAONA,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                                         No. 20-3255
    (D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03218-JWL)
    D. HUDSON, Warden, USP -                                     (D. Kan.)
    Leavenworth,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before McHUGH, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**
    _________________________________
    Petitioner-Appellant Siliaivaoese Fuimaona, a federal inmate appearing pro se,
    appeals from the district court’s judgment on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     habeas petition,
    which sought credit on his federal sentence for time served on a prior Missouri state
    criminal sentence. See Fuimaona v. Hudson, No. 20-3218-JWL, 
    2020 WL 7186148
    (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 2020).
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
    of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
    its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    **
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    In July 2014, Mr. Fuimaona was sentenced in state court for possession of a
    controlled substance, burglary, and theft/stealing. R. 51–54. On October 14, 2015,
    Mr. Fuimaona was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in federal
    court. R. 56–63. On October 19, 2015, he was taken into federal custody on a writ
    of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and was later returned to Missouri custody on
    March 31, 2016. R. 65. Mr. Fuimaona was then transferred to federal custody on
    December 19, 2016 and on January 18, 2017, he entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of
    the federal indictment. R. 72. Mr. Fuimaona was returned to state custody on
    February 7, 2017 until he was released on parole on March 27, 2017. R. 67, 70. He
    was returned to federal custody on the same day. On May 25, 2017, petitioner was
    sentenced to a federal term of 144 months, concurrent with his state sentence. R. 80.
    The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awarded 65 days of federal credit for prior
    custody from February 6, 2014, through February 12, 2014, and from March 28,
    2017, through May 24, 2017. R. 81.
    Mr. Fuimaona seeks additional credit for time served on his prior Missouri
    state criminal sentence. However, a defendant can only be given credit toward a term
    of imprisonment if such credit “has not been credited against another sentence.”
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3585
    (b). A defendant cannot receive presentence credit on a federal
    sentence for time that was already credited to a prior state sentence. See United
    States v. Wilson, 
    503 U.S. 329
    , 334 (1992); Goodface v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 802
    F. App’x 397, 399 (10th Cir. 2020).
    2
    Mr. Fuimaona’s federal sentence commenced on May 25, 2017, the date he was
    sentenced and received into federal custody. See Binford v. United States, 
    436 F.3d 1252
    , 1255 (10th Cir. 2006). His prior custody by the state of Missouri was already
    credited to his state court conviction. Therefore, the district court was correct that the
    BOP properly calculated Mr. Fuimaona’s credit for prior custody.
    Mr. Fuimaona also argues that he was entitled under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 to
    credit on his federal sentence for the time he served in connection with his Missouri
    state sentences. Aplt. Br. 4–10. That issue, we conclude, is not one that is properly
    raised in a § 2241 habeas petition. Rather, that issue, which effectively challenges
    the manner in which his federal sentence was calculated, can be considered only by
    the sentencing court by way of a motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255.1
    We therefore AFFIRM the district court and GRANT the motion to proceed in
    forma pauperis.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    1
    Further, the sentencing transcript indicates that the district court did impose
    the federal sentence to run concurrently with the remainder of Mr. Fuimaona’s state
    sentence in compliance with U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. See Sentencing Transcript, United
    States v. Fuimaona, No. 4:15-cr-00101-BCW-6, at 20 (ECF No. 333).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-3255

Filed Date: 4/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/23/2021