UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 8/6/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
RONNIE BRUCE EDMOND, Sr.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 96-1118
(D.C. No. 96-B-293)
J.W. BOOKER, (D. Colo.)
Respondent-Appellee.
_____________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_____________________
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
_____________________
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Federal prisoner Ronnie Bruce Edmond, Sr., brings this habeas corpus
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
petition pro se and in forma pauperis to appeal the district court's dismissal of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion for a recomputation of the time he must serve under
his sentence. We affirm.
Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), Mr. Edmond claims his federal sentence should
have been reduced by the pretrial time he spent in custody in a county jail in
Georgia. The district court dismissed his petition based on a Magistrate's
recommendation. The magistrate judge found Mr. Edmond was not entitled to
credit for the nine months and twenty days Mr. Edmond spent in custody because
after he pled guilty to several state charges, the state court sentenced him to the
time he had already served in the county jail. The magistrate judge found:
The documents attached to the petition show that Petitioner
received full credit for nine months and twenty days on his state
sentence. The language of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) makes it clear that
Petitioner is not entitled to receive simultaneous credit on both his
state and federal sentences. Petitioner owed a debt to two
sovereigns, and each had a right to exact its debts independently of
each other.
We agree. On appeal, Mr. Edmond devotes a great deal of his argument to trying
to establish that the initial reason for his detention in the Georgia prison was due
to an outstanding federal warrant for his arrest rather than the state charges to
which he later pled guilty. Mr. Edmond's reliance on this theory is misplaced. It
does not matter why he was initially arrested under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) if he has
-2-
already been credited with the time he was held in detention. Specifically, 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b) provides:
(b) Credit for prior custody.--A defendant shall be given
credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he
has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence
commences--
(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was
imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the
defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for
which the sentence was imposed;
that has not been credited against another sentence.
Mr. Edmond does not dispute the fact that the time period he claims should be
deducted from his current sentence has already been fully credited against his
sentence for his state convictions. His argument that he was in constructive
federal custody during this time period is without merit because that time period
has already "been credited against another sentence." Id.; see Bruss v. Harris,
479 F.2d 392, 394 (10th Cir. 1973) (court rejected defendant's claim he was
entitled to "double credit" for time held in state custody).
The district court's order dismissing Mr. Edmond's petition is AFFIRMED.
-3-
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-4-