USA v. Tillman, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Criminal No. 6:19-CR-60035-SOH-1
DEANTHONY L. TILLMAN 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant, Deanthony L. Tillman, a federal prisoner presently housed at Montgomery
Federal Prison Camp, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, AL 36112, has on September 16,
2025, submitted a letter to the Court which has been docketed as a Motion for Sentence Reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) for review by this Court. (ECF No. 107). The Motion was referred
to the undersigned on October 6, 2025. (ECF No. 108).
Upon a review of the Motion, however, it is apparent that Defendant is not challenging the
legality of his sentence, but rather the execution of his sentence, and specifically, whether he is
entitled to credit for all time spent in federal custody prior to his most recent federal sentence.
Tillman could attack the execution of his sentence in a habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(a), but it must be filed in the district where the inmate is incarcerated. Bell v. United States,
48 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1995). As the Eighth Circuit held in Bell, the district court for the
Eastern District of Missouri lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Bell’s § 2241 petition
because Bell was not incarcerated in the Eastern District of Missouri, and Bell was required to
seek relief in a court with jurisdiction over his present custodian. Id. Here, Tillman is not presently
incarcerated in the Western District of Arkansas, but in a BOP facility in Montgomery, Alabama,
which is situated in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. Accordingly, this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear any petition by Tillman filed under § 2241.
Case 6:19-cr-60035-SOH Document 109 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Tillman a blank form for a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (AO 242), to be completed by him and filed in a court
having jurisdiction over his present custodian.
For the reasons just discussed, it is also RECOMMENDED that Tillman’s letter (ECF No.
107), to the extent it is considered as a Motion for Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b),
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 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.
DATED this 30th day of October 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:19-cr-60035-SOH Document 109 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>