FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 22, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROGER LEE REED,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 10-3334
v. (D.C. No. 5:08-CV-03209-RDR)
(D. Kan.)
CAROL HOLINKA, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Roger Lee Reed appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
seeking early release from federal prison. We affirm.
Mr. Reed was convicted under Kansas law for committing theft while on
probation. The state court imposed a prison sentence of fifty-seven months.
Shortly after his state conviction, Mr. Reed pled guilty in federal court to illegal
possession of a firearm. The court sentenced him to thirty-six months to run
*
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel.
consecutively to his state sentence. On May 31, 2007, while serving his state
sentence, Mr. Reed was erroneously transferred to federal custody. Upon
discovering this administrative error, federal authorities promptly returned him to
Kansas. On April 3, 2009, Mr. Reed completed his state sentence and was
transferred back to federal custody to serve out his federal sentence. Time
mistakenly spent in federal custody was credited against his state sentence.
On appeal, Mr. Reed makes two arguments for early release. First, he
contends his federal sentence actually commenced on May 31, 2007 (not April 3,
2009) when he was erroneously transferred to federal custody. Second, he says
he should have received credit against his federal sentence for time served before
April 3, 2009. The district court rejected both these arguments. Relying on
Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006), and Stroble v. Terrell,
200 F. App’x 811 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished), the court held that Mr. Reed’s
federal sentence commenced on April 3. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). Moreover, it
held that no time served before April 3 could be credited against his federal
sentence because that time had already been credited against his state sentence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). After reviewing the record ourselves, we cannot
disagree with the district court. Accordingly, and for substantially the same
reasons given by the court in its thorough order, we affirm the denial of
-2-
Mr. Reed’s habeas petition and deny his “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Summary Judgment Rule 56 (a - g).”
Entered for the Court
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-