Nicholas Roe v. Rodney Chandler, No. 14-10234 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10234 Document: 00512960502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10234 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 6, 2015 NICHOLAS LEE ROE, Petitioner-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-721 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nicholas Lee Roe, federal prisoner # 35307-177, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he argued that he was erroneously denied roughly 24 months of prior custody credit. Roe’s motion to file his reply brief out of time is GRANTED. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and issues of law de novo. See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). On 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-10234 Document: 00512960502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2015 No. 14-10234 appeal, Roe argues that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) should consider his 10year federal sentence to run fully concurrently with his 10-year state sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. That state sentence ran concurrently with Roe’s consecutive state sentences for burglary of a building and methamphetamine possession. The district court, however, ordered that Roe’s federal sentence run consecutively to his state sentence for burglary of a building. If the federal sentence were to run fully concurrently with the 10-year state sentence, the BOP would necessarily be running the federal sentence concurrently with the two-year burglary sentence, which would be violative of the district court’s judgment. Further, the record discloses that the time spent in state custody which Roe seeks to have credited towards his federal sentence was previously credited towards his state sentences. Because the period was credited against another undischarged sentence, it may not be applied toward his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). AFFIRMED. 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.
