US v. Jayconus Scott, No. 11-6524 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6524 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAYCONUS CORNELLIUS SCOTT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8) Submitted: June 16, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, June 21, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jayconus Cornellius Scott, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jayconus Cornellius Scott appeals the district court s order denying his motion seeking credit toward his prison sentence imposed after the revocation of his term of supervised release. Upon revocation of Scott s supervised release, which was imposed as part of his sentence for conspiracy to defraud the United States, the district court sentenced Scott to six months imprisonment in February 2011. moved the district court for credit In April 2011, Scott toward the revocation sentence, arguing that he was entitled to credit for time served in a state prison from September 22, 2010 until sentencing on February 14, 2011. District compute credit courts, for time sentencing a convict. 333 (1992). however, spent in are not official authorized detention when United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, Rather, only the Attorney General, acting through Id. at the Bureau of Prisons, may compute sentencing credit. 334-35. to The district court was therefore without the authority to award Scott credit for the time he spent in state custody. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. United States v. Scott, No. 7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2011). legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
