ORDER

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court On Defendant Kenneth Graham Lassiter's letter request for clarification. (Exhibit A).

Defendant Lassiter was sentenced in this case on September 11, 1987. On September 18, 1989, Defendant Lassiter's sentence was amended. On December 13, 1995, Defendant Lassiter's sentence was again amended. A copy of the Amended Final Judgment is attached to this Order. (Exhibit B). This sentence included: 10 years imprisonment without parole followed by 5 years supervised release as to Count I; 10 years imprisonment with parole as to Count 2, and 10 years imprisonment with parole as to Count 3. All counts were ordered to run consecutive to one another.

Defendant Lassiter served a term of imprisonment after sentencing in 1987. On February 21, 2006, Defendant Lassiter began serving a term of parole. Defendant Lassiter was discharged from parole on May 18, 2011, and began serving Defendant's 5 year term of supervised release. Defendant Lassiter's term of supervised release was scheduled to terminate on May 17, 2016. However, the Petition for Violation of Supervised Release filed on November 6, 2013 stopped the clock. When Defendant Lassiter is released from state custody, Defendant Lassiter will be brought into federal custody for a hearing on the Petition for Violation of Supervised Release.

Defendant Lassiter has been in state custody since Defendant Lassiter was arrested and charged by the Palm Bay Police Department in Brevard County Circuit Court. Even if federal authorities took possession of Defendant Lassiter pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendam, the state's authority is not interrupted, and Defendant Lassiter's federal sentence does not begin to run until Defendant Lassiter is turned over to federal authorities after having served his state sentence. See Causey v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 1980).

The Court also notes that a federal court is authorized to impose a federal sentence consecutive to a state sentence, although the state court explicitly made its sentence concurrent with the federal sentence. See Finch v. Vaughn, 67 F.3d 909, 915 (11th Cir. 1995); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478 n.4 (3d Cir. 1990). At the time that Defendant Lassiter is sentenced on the Violation of Supervised Release, Defendant Lassiter will have the opportunity raise any issue as to concurrency. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant Lassiter's request for clarification is denied, except as stated above. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to pro se Defendant at the address below.

DONE and ORDERED.

January 29, 2018

Defendant Kenneth G. Lassiter comes pro-se seeking re-clarification of sentence because court's response is based on so many misconceptions and errors.

1) Defendant was not found guilty of robbery with deadly weapon or firearm, but of the lesser included offence of robbery, no deadly weapon or firearm and theft more than $300, less than $2000.

2) Defendant was not on supervised release. Defendant was fully discharged from federal custody having successfully completed all supervised release in 2011. After two months of freedom, defendant was notified that he was being placed on special probation for 5 years, even though he had done nothing wrong. Defendant was repeatedly told by parole officer, parole officer supervisor and clerk of courts both verbally and in writing that special probation and supervised release were two totally different things.

3) To this date, defendant has not been violated for probation either by mail or more lawfully in person, even though court clearly states that probation office knew of violation as early as 11-6-2013 and defendant sent letter asking for status update.

4) To this date, defendant has not been served warrant either by mail or more lawfully by Federal Marshall even though court states it knew of case as far back as 11-6-2013 and defendant has written court as early as 1-15-2015 for resolution of case.

5) State Court Judge Crawford was fully aware of defendant's federal status at time of sentencing as it was brought up at bond hearings in open court and at sentencing when he specifically stated that the state sentence was to run concurrently with any active sentences; i.e., Federal probation and any sentences that arise from this conviction, i.e., federal probation violation as high lighted on State Judgment and Commitment paper already sent.

6) It is defendants understanding that not only can the sentencing judge rescind warrant for probation violation, but that sentencing judge is the ONLY one who can make any decisions regarding violation of probation issues.

In summary, defendant states that state time must be applied to any and all sentences related to and stemming from state conviction, and as of how both probation office and court were aware of offence on 11-6-2013, defendant wishes to be remanded to Federal Custody to resolve issue once and for all.

Dear Judge Kovachevich,

Thank you for your response to our request on 1-9-18. Unfortunately, I do not think that we asked the right questions. We really needed some clarification of the federal hold, the special probation, and the effect on the current sentencing. Please see attached, which hopefully clarifies and explains our request.