Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MIRAMONTES v. STONE, CV 315-061. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20150925i19 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated at McRae Correctional Facility in McRae, Georgia, has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, seeking to have the Bureau of Prisons apply 110 days of prior custody credit to his forty-three month federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 3585(b). Specifically, Petitioner seeks credit for time spent in state custody from his arrest on November 16, 2012, until his release to federal authorities for prosecution of
More

ORDER

Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated at McRae Correctional Facility in McRae, Georgia, has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to have the Bureau of Prisons apply 110 days of prior custody credit to his forty-three month federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Specifically, Petitioner seeks credit for time spent in state custody from his arrest on November 16, 2012, until his release to federal authorities for prosecution of the charge for which he is currently incarcerated. (See generally doc. no. 1.) Respondent argues that the petition should be denied because United States District Judge Amy Totenberg credited Petitioner with the time spent in state custody when she sentenced him on January 7, 2015. (See generally doc. no. 9.)

In an Order dated September 15, 2015, the Court explained the record was devoid of documentation showing that Judge Totenberg considered the prior custody credit issue when fashioning Petitioner's sentence and directed Respondent to provide evidentiary documentation establishing what occurred at sentencing. (Doc. no. 10.) The Court expressed no preference as to form of the evidence, and provided as an example a redacted version of the Statement of Reasons ("SOR"). (Id. at 2.) Respondent filed a heavily redacted SOR on September 22, 2015, that appears to have inadvertently redacted Judge Totenberg's signature and any other verification that the version of the SOR provided was actually the final, judicially approved version made a part of the judgment. (See doc. no. 12.)

Accordingly, Respondent shall have until October 15, 2015 to provide an updated version of the SOR addressing the authenticity concerns outlined above. Respondent may, if he chooses, provide alternate documentary evidence such as a sentencing transcript.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer