UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 6/21/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 95-2219
(D.C. No. CIV 95-561)
LARRY JAMES MIRELES, (District of New Mexico)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Larry James Mireles moved the district court to vacate and set aside his
conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mireles claimed that the United
States surrendered its custody and jurisdiction over him by turning him over to New
Mexico state officials, and therefore deprived him of due process by subsequently
*
At the parties’ request, the case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral
argument pursuant to the applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;
nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th
Cir. R. 36.3.
incarcerating him in federal prison. The district court dismissed Mireles’ petition with
prejudice, and we affirm.
On December 10, 1987, while Appellant was incarcerated for New Mexico state
crimes in the Bernalillo County Detention Center (“BCDC”), a federal grand jury indicted
him on bank robbery charges. The United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, ordering the BCDC to surrender
Mireles to United States Marshals for his arraignment. A federal magistrate arraigned
him on March 24, 1988. Mireles pled not guilty at his arraignment.
On May 3, 1988, Mireles pled guilty in federal court to one count of armed
robbery, and on May 6 the New Mexico District Attorney filed a nolle prosequi dropping
all state charges against him. On July 1, 1988, he was sentenced to a term of eighteen
years in federal prison. On both dates, he appeared in federal district court under writs of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the district court, and on both occasions he was
returned to BCDC following the federal proceedings. During Mireles’ dentention in the
New Mexico facility, the United States Marshal lodged a federal detainer with New
Mexico. However, BCDC did not return Mireles to federal custody until June 20 or 23,
1989.
Appellant claims that when he was arraigned in federal court, he came into the
dual custody of the United States and New Mexico; when the New Mexico prosecutor
filed a nolle prosequi dropping all state charges against him, New Mexico relinquished
-2-
jurisdiction and custody and the United States had sole jurisdiction and custody; and by
thereafter returning him to BCDC the United States also relinquished jurisdiction and
custody. He claims that the United States’ filing of a detainer with New Mexico when the
district court imposed its sentence somehow confirms this relinquishment. Because both
governments have relinquished jurisdiction and custody, Appellant claims, his continued
incarceration violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The government responds that, while detained in BCDC, Appellant merely
appeared in federal court pursuant to federal writs, and therefore the state facility never
gave up its custody. Furthermore, the filing of a detainer merely constitutes a request that
New Mexico notify federal authorities when a prisoner is released, and does not signify
an acknowledgment that the United States had relinquished jurisdiction. The government
asserts that the United States rightfully assumed custody and jurisdiction over Mireles
when BCDC released him in June of 1989.
We reject Appellant’s creative argument. New Mexico retained custody of
Mireles until the final disposition of his state court proceedings. Williams v. Taylor, 327
F.2d 322, 323 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1002 (1964). It did not relinquish
custody by complying with the district court’s writs. Id. It follows that the prisoner’s
return to state custody following his federal proceedings was not a relinquishment of
federal custody, either. The United States could not relinquish what it did not have. In
addition, the detainer lodged by the United States was nothing more than a request that
-3-
state prison officials notify the United States Marshall of the prisoner’s release date so
that federal authorities could at that point take custody of him. United States v. Dovalina,
711 F.2d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 1983). We decline to interpret the lodging of a federal
detainer with a state as a sign that the United States had, and relinquished, custody or
jurisdiction of the Appellant. We also note that to adopt Appellant’s approach with
respect to any of these issues would be to impede the efficient simultaneous adjudication
of state and federal proceedings involving the same defendant. Appellant’s ultimate
transfer to a federal facility to serve his sentence did not violate his due process rights.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-