1:08-cr-00021•USA v. Wood
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:08-cr-00021-MR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) MICHAEL ROY WOOD, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s letter, which the Court construes as a motion for clarification. [Doc. 33]. The Defendant was sentenced on January 29, 2009 to a term of 180 months’ imprisonment.1 [Doc. 19]. The Defendant contends that since being sentenced, he was sentenced in a state case that was to run concurrently with his federal sentence. The Defendant remains in state custody and seeks clarification as to the status of his federal sentence. The Attorney General, not the sentencing court, is responsible for computing a prisoner’s credit. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). A prisoner seeking review of the computation of his sentence credit 1 The Defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Lacy H. Thornburg. Upon Judge Thornburg’s retirement, this matter was assigned to the undersigned. Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 34 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2 must first seek administrative review of that computation through the Bureau of Prisoners. Only after such administrative remedies have been exhausted can a prisoner then seek judicial review of his sentence computation. Id. Further, because “[a] claim for credit against a sentence attacks the computation and execution of a sentence rather than the sentence itself,” United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989), such claims must be raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Accordingly, the Defendant should address his inquiry regarding the status of his sentence to the Bureau of Prisons. Once the BOP administrative remedies have been exhausted, he may seek judicial review in the district of his confinement. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s letter, which the Court construes as a motion for clarification [Doc. 33, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 34 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3 Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 34 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3
1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:08-cr-00021-MR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, VS. ORDER MICHAEL ROY WOOD, Defendant. ed we we we ee oe oe owe we we THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's letter, which the Court consttues as a motion for clanfication. [Doc. 33]. The Defendant was sentenced on January 29, 2009 to a term of 180 months’ imprisonment.’ [Doc. 19]. The Defendant contends that since being sentenced, he was sentenced in a state case that was to mn concurrently with his federal sentence. The Defendant remains in state custody and seeks clarification as to the status of his federal sentence. The Attomey General, not the sentencing court, is responsible for computing a prisoner’s credit. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). A prisoner seeking review of the computation of his sentence credit ' The Defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Lacy H. Thomburg. Upon Judge Thornburg’s retirement, this matter was assigned to the undersigned. INFORMATION 2 must first seek administrative review of that computation through the Bureau of Prisoners. Only after such administrative remedies have been exhausted can a prisoner then seek judicial review of his sentence computation. Id. Further, because “[a] claim for credit against a sentence attacks the computation and execution of a sentence rather than the sentence itself,” United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989), such claims must be raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Accordingly, the Defendant should address his inquiry regarding the status of his sentence to the Bureau of Prisons. Once the BOP administrative remedies have been exhausted, he may seek judicial review in the district of his confinement. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s letter, which the Court construes as a motion for clarification [Doc. 33, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 34 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3 3 Case 1:08-cr-00021-MR Document 34 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.