Tufaro v. Holt

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-24-2008
Tufaro v. Holt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2724
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Tufaro v. Holt" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 497.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/497
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-2724
__________
DOMINIC TUFARO,
Appellant
vs.
WARDEN RONNIE HOLT,
Appellee
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Civil No. 3:05-cv-00069)
District Court Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 23, 2008
___________
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and GARTH, Circuit Judges,
(Opinion Filed September 24, 2008)
___________
OPINION
___________
GARTH, Circuit Judge:
Tufaro was arrested on December 9, 1982, and held under two indictments. On
July 7, 1983, he was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years on the indictment under
docket number 75-CR-0687-06. On May 1, 1984, he received a second sentence of 40
years on the indictment under docket number S82-CR-0838-01. Both sentences were to
be served concurrently.
Tufaro was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center throughout this interim
until he was transferred on May 8, 1984, to the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania. He received pre-sentence credit for the time spent in custody from
December 9, 1982, to July 6, 1983, the day before his first sentence was imposed. But the
297 days he served from July 7, 1983, the date of his first sentence, to April 30, 1984, the
day before his second sentence, were credited only as time served under his first, 15-year
sentence.
Tufaro now complains that the 297 days should have been credited as pre-sentence
custody toward his 40-year sentence because his sentences did not commence to run until
he was received at the Lewisburg facility. The District Court, in a comprehensive opinion
dated March 15, 2006, denied Tufaro’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, referring to 18 U.S.C. § 3568, which provides:
The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an
offense shall commence to run from the date on which such
person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for
service of such sentence. The Attorney General shall give
any such person credit toward service of his sentence for any
-2-
days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts
for which sentence was imposed. . . .
If any such person shall be committed to a jail or other place
of detention to await transportation to the place at which his
sentence is to be served, his sentence shall commence to run
from the date on which he is received at such jail or other
place of detention.
18 U.S.C. § 3568 (repealed).
Under the plain language of the statute, Tufaro’s 15-year sentence commenced to
run when he returned to the Metropolitan Correctional Center on July 7, 1983. He served
297 days toward this sentence; his subsequent 40-year sentence commenced on May 1,
1984, and ran concurrently only with the remainder of his 15-year sentence. See Shelvy
v. Whitfield, 718 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment denying Tufaro a writ of
habeas corpus substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Vanaskie’s opinion.
-3-