Carmona v. Williamson ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-22-2007
Carmona v. Williamson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4650
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Carmona v. Williamson" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1076.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1076
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4650
________________
CESAR F. CARMONA,
Appellant
v.
TROY WILLIAMSON
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-0022)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 20, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: May 22, 2007 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Cesar Carmona, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary
at Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
Carmona pled guilty to various state criminal charges, and the Superior Court of
Delaware sentenced him to an eight-year term of imprisonment on November 28, 2000.
In 2001, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico issued a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum ordering state authorities to produce Carmona so that he
could face federal criminal charges. In 2002, Carmona pled guilty in the District Court to
one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a term of
ninety-six months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with his Delaware sentence.
Carmona then returned to Delaware to serve the remainder of his state sentence. He left
state custody on December 12, 2003, after the Superior Court of Delaware granted his
motion for a reduced sentence, and was immediately taken into federal custody. Shortly
thereafter, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculated that Carmona’s ninety-six-
month federal sentence commenced on the date it was imposed by the District Court
(December 27, 2002) and credited him for time served from that date until his December
12, 2003 transfer into federal custody. The BOP also credited him for time served prior
to the date his state sentence commenced.
Carmona has filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for the purpose
of challenging the duration of his federal sentence. He argues that he is entitled to a
shorter sentence based on his twenty-five months of confinement from the date of his
state sentencing until the date of his federal sentencing. The United States District Court
2
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the petition, and Carmona now appeals.
We agree with the District Court that the BOP did not err in denying Carmona
credit for time served pursuant to his state sentence. Federal law expressly precludes the
BOP from crediting a prisoner for time served prior to commencement of a federal
sentence if such time has already been credited towards another sentence. 18 U.S.C. §
3585(a)-(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992). Because the
twenty-five-month period preceding the commencement of Carmona’s federal sentence
counted towards his state sentence, the BOP was not permitted to credit him for that
period of confinement. Consequently, Carmona is also not entitled to credit for the
fourteen months that he was detained pursuant to the ad prosequendum writ.1 See
Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir. 2002) abrogated on other grounds by
Application Note 3(E) to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. Carmona also raises an argument based on a
limited exception to the rule against double credit stated in Kayfez v. Gasele, 993 F.2d
1288 (7th Cir. 1993), but the District Court correctly concluded that Kayfez is inapposite
to this case.
Carmona also claims that the BOP’s calculation was contrary to the terms of his
plea agreement and the District Court’s sentencing order, both of which expressly indicate
1
We do not address the merits of Carmona’s claim that fourteen months’ detention
pursuant to an ad prosequendum writ transmutes into federal custody, because he is
asserting this claim for the first time on appeal. See Moscato v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996).
3
that the federal sentence was to run concurrently with the state sentence. He appears to
argue that the BOP improperly ignored the sentencing judge’s decision to adjust his
federal sentence to account for time already served pursuant to the undischarged state
sentence. To the extent he does so, we find this argument meritless because there is no
evidence indicating that the sentencing judge intended such an outcome. See Ruggiano,
307 F.3d at 132-33; Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257, 265-68 (3d Cir. 2000).
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that Carmona has not shown
that he is entitled to habeas relief. We will therefore affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
4