United States v. Reed

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 2, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41483
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARK WAYNE REED,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-17-ALL
--------------------
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Mark Wayne Reed, federal prisoner # 05308-078, appeals from
the district court’s order denying his “motion for jail time
credits.” Although not addressed by the district court in its
order denying Reed’s motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper
procedural vehicle for challenging the execution of a sentence.
United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because pro se pleadings must be liberally construed as seeking the
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
proper remedy, Reed’s motion will be treated as arising under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Robinson, 78 F.3d 172, 174
(5th Cir. 1996). Because the district of incarceration is the same
as the district of conviction, the Eastern District of Texas had
jurisdiction to consider it. See United States v. Weathersby, 958
F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992).
Even if it would be futile for Reed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, Reed is not entitled to credit on his
federal sentence for time spent in state custody prior to the
imposition of the federal sentence because that period was credited
against another sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Vignera v.
Attorney General, 455 F.2d 637, 638 (5th Cir. 1972). Accordingly,
the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
2