U.S. v. Manley, 2:03-cr-00413-RCJ-PAL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190530e38
Visitors: 34
Filed: May 29, 2019
Latest Update: May 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . In his Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 56), the Defendant argues that he is entitled to more good time credit. Challenges regarding good time credit need to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 , 53 (1995). Here the Defendant simply filed a motion as part of his criminal case. The challenges need to be sought in the district of confinement. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 , 956 (9th Cir. 2008).
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . In his Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 56), the Defendant argues that he is entitled to more good time credit. Challenges regarding good time credit need to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 , 53 (1995). Here the Defendant simply filed a motion as part of his criminal case. The challenges need to be sought in the district of confinement. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 , 956 (9th Cir. 2008). ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
In his Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 56), the Defendant argues that he is entitled to more good time credit. Challenges regarding good time credit need to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 53 (1995). Here the Defendant simply filed a motion as part of his criminal case. The challenges need to be sought in the district of confinement. Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). Here the Defendant was confined in California at the time of petition and is now released. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited on May 9, 2019). Lastly, the writs need to be sought only after a defendant has exhausted the administrative remedies. Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991). Here the Defendant has not made such a showing. For all of these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 56) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
