Winston v. Stansberry, No. 3:2010cv00631 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/10/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. PATRICIA R. 3:10CV631 STANSBERRY, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Monte brings 2010, DeCarlos Winston, a federal inmate proceeding pro this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. the Court "the Present that he § received a 28 U.S.C. 2241 Petition"). § 2241 following ground: provisions for applying Willis Jail Credit i1] being applied (hereinafter In that petition Winston contends is entitled to relief on the not On September 1, Petition The terms of my detention are improper, are se, correctly by the because the in my case B.O.P., because Virginia Laws dealing with Jail Credit and days credited to a State sentence are different than the Federal Laws. (See Attachment Al & A) Emphasis: According to Virginia law an inmates sentence start date is merely the sum of all Jail Credit period minus the date received. (DRC) As you can see on (Attachment A) it v[e]rifies the date I was received in State custody. Also, (Attachment AA) shows that my sentence monitoring computation data sheet dated 8-22-07 is (Present a clear § had it right, form of 2241 Pet. 8.) but they changed it. (This retaliation). Winston demands the following relief: WI want the Court to get my Willis Jail Credit correctly applied to my sentence." (Id.) 1 Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1971 Respondent has moved to dismiss the Present § 2441 Petition on the ground because that the argument it runs Court that the afoul of previously Bureau of the abuse addressed Prisons Winston proper credit against his of and Stansberry, 21, aff' d, 2009), 384 3:08cv553, F. App'x 240 I. On Petition In the PRIOR 26, August 2 008, from Winston First § 2241 2009 SECTION the Court Winston's failed to award for time spent 2230844 (E.D. Va. See July 2010). PROCEEDINGS received (hereinafter Petition, WL doctrine federal sentence. (4th Cir. 2241 has sentence in custody prior to the commencement of his Winston v. writ rejected ("BOP") federal the "the a U.S.C. § 2241 § 2241 Petition"). asserted Winston First 28 that he had not received proper credit against his federal sentence for time spent in custody Winston prior asserted January 6, 2009 the "time Mem. Supp. WL 2230844 requested that the Court with all prior time Winston, 2009 thorough review Winston's imposition that 1999." 3:08cv553, to WL sentence credit the (E.D. that and made Va. 1, correct, the federal actually 21, which back to Stansberry, 2009). Winston and credit my sentence I'm entitled to." in sentence. go Winston v. July Accordingly, manner his should § 2241 Pet. "clear up, 2230844. of credit of the the § Court BOP 2241 conducted had following pertinent Pet. 5, a calculated findings: 1. Credit Toward Winston7b BOP awarded Concurrent In sentences, credit Federal calculating BOP time toward Sentence federal sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584, which controls calculation of concurrent federal sentences if "imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); see United States v. Smith, 472 F.3d 222, 225 (4th Cir. 2006). Winston served his for concurrent considers a federal sentence to commence when it is imposed. See United States v. Labeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93, 98-99 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that a federal sentence cannot commence before it is imposed). In Winston's case, the district court judge ordered 77 months of his federal sentence to run concurrent to his state sentence. Accordingly, BOP granted credit toward Winston's federal sentence for time in state custody after his May 19, 2003 federal sentencing date and prior to his June 18, 2007 reception into [United States Marshal Service] 2. Credit custody. Toward Called "Willis" (Kelly Decl. Winston's Time Federal 1 21.) Sentence for So- Served Winston also earned credit toward his federal sentence under the second factor, so-called "Willis" time, which arises from the holding in Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d [923, 925 (5th Cir. 1971)]. While 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2) bars crediting a federal term with time already counted toward another sentence, Willis provides an exception. Under Willis, BOP grants prior custody credit, even if it results in a double-credit toward a state sentence, when two conditions are met: (1) a prisoner's state concurrently; and, release is date and (2) the equal to federal federal or sentences sentence greater than run full the term state sentence full term release date. Id. If, as in this case, these two circumstances are met, then credit is given toward the federal sentence for time spent in state pre-sentence custody that begins on or after the date of the federal first state offense, sentence. and runs to the imposition of the Id. Winston's federal offense occurred January 6, 1999, and he was taken into custody on January 7, 1999. His first sentencing date occurred on March 22, 1999. Pursuant to Willis, BOP accurately credited Winston's federal term for 74 days of pre-sentence credit for time served from January 7 to March 21, 1999. (Kelly Decl. H 21.) Time in state custody on or after the March 22, 1999 imposition of his state sentence is ineligible for credit toward his federal sentence under the Willis exception. Accordingly, Winston's claim to entitlement for time served in state custody toward his federal sentence lacks merit. The Court finds no error in the manner that Respondent Winston v. Va. has calculated Winston's Stansberrv, July 21, 200 9) 3:08cv553, (internal 2009 sentence. WL 2230844, footnotes omitted; at *3-4 (E.D. first omission in original). II. Long before Death Penalty the Act, abuse of the writ, ABUSE OF enactment of the Supreme THE WRIT the Antiterrorism and Effective Court developed the applications. (1991) (describing the evolution of the doctrine). See of the writ doctrine, claim that petition." was context, even both raised Davis, supported was rejected the applicant on Ct. 973 to by 499 U.S. 467, 479-88 Under the abuse adjudicated 373 U.S. (2011). In claims different at 16) . the Zant, F.3d 1262, United States, S. 373 U.S. and 617 a habeas petitioner's when Sanders, 131 McCleskey v. a federal habeas court "could decline to hear Stanko v. (citing Sanders v. dismissed, of which limited the review of second or successive habeas a doctrine show that on a legal prior the ends of 1, the "may be Nevertheless, merits 1270 in an earlier (10th Cir. 11-12 abuse (1963)), of the considered the arguments." Id. 2010) cert, writ same (citing n [e] ven if the same ground application, it justice would be is open to served by permitting the redetermination of the ground." Sanders. 373 U.S. at 16.2 Winston's Present § 2241 Petition constitutes an abuse of the writ in that the Court has rejected his claim that he is entitled to additional credit against his federal sentence for time spent in custody prior to the imposition of his federal sentence, Willis credit. at 16) . Stanko, 617 F.3d at 1270 (citing Sanders. executed, current claim. in his Sanders, First 373 U.S. § 2241 at 16 identical grounds may often be or arguments, be couched immaterial respects." demonstrate that in Petition, ends So supported by different legal different of his identical factual allegations. language, (internal citations omitted)). the embraced ("In other words, grounds may often be proved by different to 373 U.S. Winston's prior broad assertions that his sentence was not properly also, including justice warrant or vary in Winston fails consideration of 2 Additionally, the Supreme Court barred new claims under the abuse of the writ doctrine when those new claims could have been raised in an earlier application but were not. McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 489. The principles of the abuse of the writ doctrine are generally codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), which provides: No circuit or district judge shall be required entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus inquire into the judgment of that the legality of by a judge application provided in 28 U.S.C. § a detention court or of a of writ section 2255. 2244(a). a United person pursuant States such detention has court for the of if it to to to a appears been determined the United States of habeas corpus, on a prior except as his Present dismiss § 2241 Petition. (Docket judgment (Docket No. 6) No. will 10) Accordingly, be will GRANTED. be Respondent's motion to The DENIED. motion The for petition summary will be DENIED and the action will be DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Opinion to Winston and counsel of An appropriate Order shall Richmoi kA fp Wj/ copy of this Memorandum record. issue. Robert Date: a E. Payne Senior United States District Judge
]]>
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.
