United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10987
Summary Calendar
DOUGLAS EDWIN PIERCE
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
L E FLEMING, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth
Respondent - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-357-A
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas Edwin Pierce, federal prisoner # 03473-180, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in
which he contended that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incorrectly
calculated his federal sentence.
Pierce contends that the district court erred when it
concluded that some of his claims were unexhausted. He also
argues that the district court erred when it determined that his
federal sentence was to run consecutively to a subsequently
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-10987
-2-
imposed state sentence and that the district court erred when it
determined that the BOP properly credited his sentence for time
served.
Pierce argues that the BOP’s method of calculating his
sentence resulted in prejudice, because a state sentence for
various state offenses, imposed after his federal conviction, was
calculated in a manner that was inconsistent with the assumptions
set forth in the BOP’s calculation of his federal sentence.
Pierce argues that, based on the BOP’s calculation of his
sentence, the state failed to credit him for the correct amount
of time and his release from state prison was delayed. The
record does not indicate that these issues were raised in the
administrative proceedings. Therefore, the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it determined that Pierce failed to
exhaust administrative remedies with respect to these issues.
See Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994).
Pierce argues that his federal sentence should have included
the time that he was held in federal prison pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum because his federal sentence should
have been treated by the BOP as a concurrent sentence. The
sentencing court had the discretion to order that a federal term
of imprisonment run either consecutively to or concurrently with
an anticipated, but not yet imposed, state sentence. United
States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir. 1991); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a). The respondent submitted unrefuted evidence with its
No. 04-10987
-3-
summary judgment motion that indicated that the federal
sentencing court intended for the sentence to run consecutively
to his state sentence. The district court therefore did not
commit error when it concluded that the BOP properly treated
Pierce’s federal sentence as a sentence that was to run
consecutively to his state sentence.
Additionally, the fact that the state court ordered the
state sentence to run concurrently with the federal sentence does
not change the consecutive nature of the federal sentence.
Federal authorities are not bound by sentencing orders from state
courts. See Leal v. Tombone, 341 F.3d 427, 429 n.13 (5th Cir.
2003). Finally, because the record indicates that the time that
Pierce spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum was credited against his state sentence,
the BOP correctly applied 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) when it did not
include this time as a credit towards Pierce’s federal sentence.
See Vignera v. Attorney General of the United States, 455 F.2d
637, 637-38 (5th Cir. 1972).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.