United States v. Edgar Rodriguez-Falcon ( 2018 )

Case: 17-40544 Document: 00514332939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-40544
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 1, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDGAR HECTOR RODRIGUEZ-FALCON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:17-CR-156-1
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Hector
Rodriguez-Falcon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States
v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Falcon has filed a response.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Rodriguez-Falcon’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 17-40544 Document: 00514332939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2018
No. 17-40544
decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United
States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
Rodriguez-Falcon also argues that the Bureau of Prisons failed to credit
him for time served in jail before his conviction. The method for computing a
federal prisoner’s sentence is controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 3585, but responsibility
for calculating detention credit lies with the Attorney General, through the
BOP, and not the courts. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992).
Before appealing his sentence calculation, Rodriguez-Falcon must first seek
administrative review through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program.
See United States v. Setser, 607 F.3d 128, 133 (5th Cir. 2010). Once Rodriguez-
Falcon “has exhausted his administrative remedies, he may file a pro se
petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the BOP’s
computation of his sentence.” Id. at 133 n.3 (quotation marks and modification
omitted).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez-Falcon’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2