Stephen Norwood v. John Fox, No. 15-1767 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not err in denying plaintiff's Section 2241 petition in which he sought prior-custody credit towards service of his federal sentence as it was undisputed the entire time period was credited to a state sentence that he was serving.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1767 ___________________________ Stephen Wayne Norwood lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. John Fox, Interim Warden, FCI - Forrest City lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: December 23, 2015 Filed: January 7, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Stephen Norwood appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought prior-custody credit towards service of his federal sentence. Upon careful de novo review, see Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that Norwood was not entitled to relief. It is undisputed that the entire time period at issue was credited against a state sentence that he was serving (notwithstanding his contention that the state lost “primary” custody over him at some point). Thus, the time was not eligible for credit against his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Elwell v. Fisher, 716 F.3d 477, 481 (8th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
