USA v. Campos-Cruz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Criminal Nos. 20-15(1)(1) (MJD); 20-83(2) (MJD)
MANUEL CAMPOS-CRUZ,
Defendant.
LeeAnn K. Bell, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Manuel Campos-Cruz, pro se.
I. 	INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Pro Se Motions for a Nunc
Pro Tunc Designation (Doc. 177 in 20-cr-15(1); Doc. 254 in 20-cr-83(2)) and
Motion for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to Amendment 821 (Doc. 176 in 20-cr-
15(1)). At all times, the Court is mindful that a document filed pro se is “to be
liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up)
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Mungai v. Univ. of Minnesota,
141 F.4th 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2025) (noting that while pro se claims must be
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS Doc. 179 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 5

2
liberally construed, they still “must contain sufficient facts supporting the
claims”) (citation omitted).
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Defendant’s Motions for a Nunc Pro Tunc Designation
Defendant first requests a nunc pro tunc designation “concerning the date
in which his Federal time started.” (Doc. 177 at 1 in 20-cr-15(1); Doc. 254 at 1 in
20-cr-83(2).) Defendant asserts he is not receiving credit for time he spent in
pretrial detention that should have been credited to his federal sentence.
Defendant was arrested on January 8, 2020. (PSR at F.1.) He had
absconded from state supervised release in October 2019 and he was detained
and returned to the Minnesota Department of Corrections related to two prior
state convictions (Second Degree Drug Possession and Possess Firearm After
Conviction, Docket Nos.: 27-CR-15-33212 and 27-CR-17-15612). Defendant’s
appearance in federal court on January 24, 2020, was via writ. (Doc. 9 in 20-cr-
15(1); see also PSR at F.1 (noting that “[t]ime in custody of the U.S. Marshal
pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum from state custody
is not federal custody in connection with the federal offense”).) Defendant was
charged in two federal dockets with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine
and on October 23, 2020, pled guilty to charges in both dockets.
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS Doc. 179 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 5

3
On July 23, 2021, Defendant was sentenced in both cases. Records from
the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) indicate that the Defendant
was “released to supervised release” on July 26, 2021, although he remained
detained due to the detention order in the federal cases. And, while Defendant’s
behavior in his federal cases triggered his state supervised release violations, his
custody from January 24, 2020 to July 26, 2021, the day of his release from the
DOC was for his prior state sentences for second degree drug possession and
possess firearm after conviction. This time cannot also be credited against his
federal sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
The Court noted this at sentencing, stating that Defendant was under a
DOC sentence at that time, that Defendant was appearing in federal court via a
writ, and that it was the Court’s understanding that the time that Defendant had
been in custody since his arrest in January 2020 was being credited towards his
state sentence. The Court explained that any sentence the Court imposed that
day would essentially begin that day and that Defendant would not receive
credit for the time he had been in custody so far. Defendant and his Counsel
indicated that they understood Defendant’s sentence and Defense Counsel stated
that he thought the Court’s representation of the situation was accurate.
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS Doc. 179 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Thus, the BOP has correctly determined Defendant’s custody credit in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2585(b). Defendant’s motions will be denied.
B. 	Defendant’s Motion For Sentence Reduction Pursuant to
Amendment 821
Defendant states that he is entitled to a sentence reduction in Case No. 20-
cr-15(1) because “he was under a federal justice sentence at the time of his arrest,
and that the Probation office used this to enhance his sentence, and as such, Cruz
prays that this court grants this motion and resentence[s] him accordingly.”
(Doc. 176 at 2 in 20-cr-15(1).) Because this motion relies on the same
misunderstanding as the motions discussed above, this motion will also be
denied.
III. 	ORDER
Based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1. 	Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for a Nunc Pro Tunc Designation [Doc.
177 in Case No. 20-cr-15(1)] is DENIED;
2. 	Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for a Nunc Pro Tunc Designation [Doc.
254 in Case No. 20-cr-83(2)] is DENIED; and
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS Doc. 179 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	Defendant’s Motion for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to
Amendment 821 [Doc. 176 in Case No. 20-cr-15(1)] is DENIED.
Date: May 7, 2026 	s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS Doc. 179 Filed 05/07/26 Page 5 of 5