Carr v. United States Bureau of Prisons

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 11, 2004
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10846
Summary Calendar
ALVIN CARR, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS;
LES E. FLEMING, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
Northern District of Texas
(4:03-CV-525-A)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Alvin Carr, Jr., federal prisoner number 15037-180, appeals,
pro se, the denial of his § 2241 habeas petition in which he sought
credit toward his federal sentence for time spent (while “borrowed”
from state custody) in federal custody pursuant to writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum. Carr contends that the district court
relied upon inaccurate facts in denying his petition, complains
that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
to file a reply, and asserts that the record does not show that he
was given a credit toward his state sentence for the time spent in
federal custody.
Carr is not entitled to double credit. Therefore, his
complaint that the BOP’s records are inaccurate is without merit,
because even if true, Carr would not be eligible for credit toward
his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585; United States v.
Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334, 337 (1992); Vignera v. Attorney General
of the United States, 455 F.2d 637, 637-38 (5th Cir. 1972).
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
allowing Carr to file a reply. For Carr’s contention that he
should receive state credit for the time spent in federal custody,
Carr has not met his initial burden of showing that he did not
receive such credit. See Orman v. Cain, 228 F.3d 616, 619 (5th
Cir. 2000).
Because Carr has not briefed whether the district court erred
in dismissing the remainder of his claims for failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies, that issue is deemed abandoned. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED
2