USA v. Hughes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Criminal Action No. 17-00112-KD-N
)
COREY DEWAYNE HUGHES, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on Defendant Corey Dewayne Hughes’ letter which the
Court construes as a motion to award jail credit (doc. 46). Upon consideration, and for the
reasons set forth herein, the motion is denied.
A. Background
Hughes pled guilty to the offense of possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. He was sentenced to a term of 110 months with “said term to run
concurrently with the Talladega County Circuit Court, Talladega, Alabama state revocation
sentence in CC-2003-149 commencing on September 28, 2018.” (doc. 44). Hughes’ judgment is
silent as to any jail credit, i.e., credit for time spent in custody before his sentence was imposed.
B. Analysis
Hughes appears to argue that the Bureau of Prisons has not given him credit for time
spent in state custody.1 He states that he “reached out to B.O.P.” and “they said they don’t give
out jail credit. It was my lawyer[‘s] and the sentencing judge[‘s] job.” (doc. 46). He also stated
1 Review of the Sentence Monitoring Computation Data indicates that Hughes was given
credit for six years, three months, and twenty-three days in custody when he entered BOP
custody on December 6, 2023 (doc. 46-1, p. 2). According to the BOP website, Hughes’
estimated release date is May 23, 2026.
Case 1:17-cr-00112-KD-N Doc# 47 Filed 03/20/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

2
that “They’re making me do the time over again” (Id.).
However, decisions regarding credit for time spent in custody are made by the United
States Bureau of Prisons, not the sentencing court. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). United States v. Hardy,
672 Fed. Appx. 978 (11th Cir. 2017) (“After a defendant begins serving his sentence, the
Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, has exclusive authority to determine whether
the defendant has spent time in official detention and to compute the amount of credit to which
he is entitled.”) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has held that “‘§ 3585(b) does not
authorize a district court to compute the credit at sentencing.” United States v. Coates, 775 Fed.
Appx. 669, 670–71 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334 (1992)).
Hughes indicates that the BOP declined to award credit. Therefore, he may pursue a
“claim through the Bureau’s Administrative Remedy Program.” United States v. Leverette, 721
Fed. Appx. 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing 28 C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq). If, after Hughes
exhausts the administrative remedy procedures through the BOP, he is still dissatisfied with the
result, he may seek judicial review of the computation by way of a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.. Id. Although, exhaustion of administrative remedies is no longer a jurisdictional
requirement, it is still a requirement. Id.
Additionally, Hughe’s § 2241 petition must be filed in the district court for the district
where he is incarcerated. Hughes is not incarcerated in the Southern District of Alabama. He is
incarcerated at FCC Forrest City Low at Forrest City, Arkansas, which is in the Eastern District
of Arkansas. Therefore, this Court would not have jurisdiction to hear his § 2241 petition.
DONE and ORDERED this the 20th day of March 2025.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:17-cr-00112-KD-N Doc# 47 Filed 03/20/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>