United States v. Rorex

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 28, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-11417
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD STEPHEN ROREX,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-49-ALL-C
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald Stephen Rorex appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction of false representation of a social
security number. Rorex argues that he should be granted credit
for the period of time that he was incarcerated under an April
26, 2004, federal detainer because he was in state custody on
state charges at that time.
The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance.
The Government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-11417
-2-
this appeal because it does not fall within the ambit of 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a). However, the Government argues that the
district court’s judgment should be summarily affirmed because
the district court lacked authority to order that Rorex be given
credit for time served.
It is well-established that district courts may not directly
award credit against federal sentences for time spent in official
detention. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-37
(1992); 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Thus, the district court did not
err by refusing to award Rorex credit for time served in state
confinement because the Attorney General, through the Bureau of
Prisons, determines what credit, if any, will be awarded to
prisoners for time spent in custody prior to the commencement of
their federal sentences. See Wilson, 503 U.S. at 331-32, 334.
The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --