USA v. Anderson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
v. CRIMINAL NO. 18-50090-001
CORNELIUS ANDERSON DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court is Defendant’s pro se “Motion for Credit for Time Served.”
(ECF No. 56). The undersigned, being well and sufficiently advised, recommends as follows:
On September 13, 2019, Defendant was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment for
conspiracy to sell stolen firearms. Defendant now seeks credit toward his sentence for time he
spent in federal custody prior to his 2019 sentencing.
A request for credit must be made, in the first instance, through the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”). Administrative procedures exist within the BOP to review the Bureau’s failure to credit
the time a Defendant previously has served. “Neither the Federal Rules nor the United States
Code gives a court the authority to modify a defendant’s sentence once that defendant has been
committed to the custody of the BOP.” United States v. Espinoza-Cardenas, No. 14-CR-289(1),
2019 WL 1150623, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2019).
Once the Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies, he may then seek judicial
review of any jail-time credit determination by the BOP by filing a habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in either the district where he is confined (currently the Eastern District of Texas),
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or in any district in which the
Case 5:18-cr-50090-TLB Document 57 Filed 11/02/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

BOP maintains a regional office. See United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004);
United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, without indication Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies,
the undersigned recommends denying Defendant’s Motion (ECP No. 56). The parties have
fourteen days from receipt of our report and recommendation in which to file written
objections pursuant to U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in
waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections
must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
Entered this 2nd day of November 2021.
/s/Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:18-cr-50090-TLB Document 57 Filed 11/02/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>