United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51263
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ANGEL MURILLO-PAYAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:01-CR-319-2-AML
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Angel Murillo-Payan, federal prisoner # 18272-180,
appeals the district court’s denial of his request for mandamus
relief. Specifically, Murillo-Payan argues that by failing to
designate the State Prison System in Oklahoma as the place of
confinement for service of his federal sentence, the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) has essentially rendered his federal and state
sentences consecutive rather than concurrent, in violation of his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-51263
-2-
plea agreement, the district court’s judgment, and the Fifth
Amendment.
Murillo-Payan has failed to establish a clear and
indisputable right to mandamus relief. The extraordinary remedy
of mandamus is not available to review the discretionary acts of
officials. Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108 (5th Cir.
1992). Although the Attorney General, through the BOP, has
discretion to designate a state facility as the place in which a
federal prisoner serves his sentence, the prisoner has no
constitutional right to placement in a particular facility. See
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Moore v. United States Att’y Gen., 473 F.2d
1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973). Although the district court may
recommend the place of imprisonment, the district court’s
recommendation is not binding on the BOP. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b)(4); United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 151-52 (5th
Cir. 1993). Moreover, contrary to Murillo-Payan’s contention,
the plea agreement contained no promise that his federal sentence
would be ordered to run concurrently with his previously imposed
state sentence.
Finally, Murillo-Payan may seek administrative relief from
the BOP and, if denied, pursue habeas corpus relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th
Cir. 1993). Therefore, Murillo-Payan has a remedy available to
him and the district court did not err by denying his request for
No. 04-51263
-3-
mandamus relief. See In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir.
1987), aff’d, 503 U.S. 131 (1992).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.