USA v. Thompson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Criminal Action No. 21-00207-KD-MU
)
ROOSEVELT THOMPSON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Motion for Calculation of a Term of Imprisonment
and document in support filed by Defendant Roosevelt Thompson (docs. 52, 52-1). Upon
consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
In February 2022, Thompson was arrested on a Federal indictment for drug related
offenses. He pled guilty to the offense of possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance. In May 2023, he was sentenced to a term of 120 months (doc. 49, Judgment). After
sentencing, he was returned to the State of Alabama for further proceedings on his state charge
for assault first degree. In June 2024, he was sentenced to time served. At the time he filed the
instant Motion, Thompson was incarcerated at the Baldwin County Correctional Facility
awaiting transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Thompson is now incarcerated at the Federal
Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Thompson moves pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585 for recalculation of his 120-month
sentence because he has “completed 38 months” (doc. 52). Thompson seeks an order granting
him credit for time spent in state and federal custody since his arrest in February 2022.
Case 1:21-cr-00207-KD-MU Doc# 54 Filed 05/20/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

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)).
Thus, Thompson may ask the Bureau of Prisons to credit his time spent in custody.
United States v. Leverette, 721 Fed. Appx. 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2018). If the BOP declines to
award credit, he may pursue a “claim through the Bureau’s Administrative Remedy Program.”
Leverette, 721 Fed. Appx. at 917 (Citing 28 C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq). If he is dissatisfied with
the calculation of credit after he has exhausted the administrative remedy procedures through the
BOP, he may seek judicial review of the calculation 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, a § 2241 petition must be filed in the
district court for the district where Thompson is incarcerated. Since he is now incarcerated at
FTC Oklahoma City in Oklahoma, this Court would not have jurisdiction to hear his § 2241
petition.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May 2025.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:21-cr-00207-KD-MU Doc# 54 Filed 05/20/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>