Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's letter [Doc. 287], which the Court construes as a motion for jail credit. The Attorney General, not the sentencing court, is responsible for computing a prisoner's sentence credit. United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329 , 335 (1992). A prisoner seeking review of the computation of his sentence credit must first seek administrative review of that computation through the Bureau of Prisons. Only a
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's letter [Doc. 287], which the Court construes as a motion for jail credit. The Attorney General, not the sentencing court, is responsible for computing a prisoner's sentence credit. United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329 , 335 (1992). A prisoner seeking review of the computation of his sentence credit must first seek administrative review of that computation through the Bureau of Prisons. Only af..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's letter [Doc. 287], which the Court construes as a motion for jail credit.
The Attorney General, not the sentencing court, is responsible for computing a prisoner's sentence credit. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). A prisoner seeking review of the computation of his sentence credit must first seek administrative review of that computation through the Bureau of Prisons. Only after such administrative remedies have been exhausted can a prisoner then seek judicial review of his sentence computation. Id. Further, because "[a] claim for credit against a sentence attacks the computation and execution of a sentence rather than the sentence itself," United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989), such claims must be raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).
Here, the Defendant asserts that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP. If that is in fact the case, the Defendant should seek judicial review in the district of his confinement pursuant to § 2241.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's letter [Doc. 287], which the Court construes as a motion, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
