Interplay of State & Federal Sentences Addressed
United States v. Miller, ___ F.3d ___ , 2010 WL 437328 (10th Cir. 2010)
A case addressing some aspects of concurrent/consecutive and state/federal sentences. Pro se “nunc pro tunc” petition to order BOP to designate that petitioner’s upcoming federal sentence be served at the state institution where he is currently serving his state sentence is a habeas petition challenging the execution of his sentence under 18 USC Sec. 2241. Petition fails because BOP cannot make a designation until P is in federal custody. This case is unlike Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990) (nor would the 10th necessarily follow Barden) because here, state sentence was imposed first, and federal sentence is affirmatively consecutive to any other sentence. Plus, BOP regs state they cannot make a nunc pro tunc designation when the federal court runs its sentence consecutive to earlier state sentence.
A case addressing some aspects of concurrent/consecutive and state/federal sentences. Pro se “nunc pro tunc” petition to order BOP to designate that petitioner’s upcoming federal sentence be served at the state institution where he is currently serving his state sentence is a habeas petition challenging the execution of his sentence under 18 USC Sec. 2241. Petition fails because BOP cannot make a designation until P is in federal custody. This case is unlike Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990) (nor would the 10th necessarily follow Barden) because here, state sentence was imposed first, and federal sentence is affirmatively consecutive to any other sentence. Plus, BOP regs state they cannot make a nunc pro tunc designation when the federal court runs its sentence consecutive to earlier state sentence.
posted by Anonymous at 1:46 PM
<< Home