U.S. v. MATAYES, 2:07-CR-00159-KJD-RJJ. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20130904b87
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion to Amend (#37). The Government responded to the Motion (#38). Defendant asks this Court to give him credit for time served. Calculation of time served in a federal sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. 3585(b). United States v. Lualemaga, 280 F.3d 1260 , 1265 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court has held that 3585(b) does not authorize a district court to compute credit for time served. United States v. Pe
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion to Amend (#37). The Government responded to the Motion (#38). Defendant asks this Court to give him credit for time served. Calculation of time served in a federal sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. 3585(b). United States v. Lualemaga, 280 F.3d 1260 , 1265 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court has held that 3585(b) does not authorize a district court to compute credit for time served. United States v. Pet..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion to Amend (#37). The Government responded to the Motion (#38).
Defendant asks this Court to give him credit for time served. Calculation of time served in a federal sentence is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). United States v. Lualemaga, 280 F.3d 1260, 1265 (9th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court has held that § 3585(b) does not authorize a district court to compute credit for time served. United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 2006) citing United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992). Rather, the Attorney General is authorized to make such calculations. Wilson, 503 U.S. at 334-35. Defendant's proper recourse is via administrative remedies and avenues, not through the Court.
III. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's Renewed Motion to Amend (#37) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Amend (#35) is DENIED as moot.
Source: Leagle
