Filed: Feb. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2020
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United Stated Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 15) was entered on January 30, 2020, recommending that the court deny Petitioner Billy Ray Brown's ("Petitioner") Petition Under 2241 Toward Amended Sentence 1 (Doc. 1), requesting credit for a period of custody that occurred prior to the imposition of his federal sentence, from May 10, 2011 through January 26, 2012. In the Report, the Magistrate J
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United Stated Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 15) was entered on January 30, 2020, recommending that the court deny Petitioner Billy Ray Brown's ("Petitioner") Petition Under 2241 Toward Amended Sentence 1 (Doc. 1), requesting credit for a period of custody that occurred prior to the imposition of his federal sentence, from May 10, 2011 through January 26, 2012. In the Report, the Magistrate Ju..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United Stated Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 15) was entered on January 30, 2020, recommending that the court deny Petitioner Billy Ray Brown's ("Petitioner") Petition Under § 2241 Toward Amended Sentence1 (Doc. 1), requesting credit for a period of custody that occurred prior to the imposition of his federal sentence, from May 10, 2011 through January 26, 2012. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge determined that the BOP properly calculated Petitioner's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). No objections to the Report were filed.
Having reviewed the application, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), and dismisses with prejudice this action.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability.2 The court determines that Petitioner has failed to show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong;" or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on appeal, unless he has been granted IFP status by the district court.
It is so ordered.
