Reed v. Guerrero

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KEITHRAYEREED,
(TDCJ #02442737),
Petitioner,
vs.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ERIC GUERRERO, Director, 	§
Texas Department of Criminal Justice - 	§
Correctional Institutions Division, 	§
Respondent.
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-5143
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The 	petitioner, 	Keith 	Raye 	Reed, 	(TDCJ 	#02442737), 	1s 	currently
incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions
Division. 	He filed a petition and an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the structure of his state and federal criminal
sentences. 	(Dkts. 1, 5). 	For the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses his
petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In August 2005, Reed was sentenced to 212 months in prison, followed by
five years of supervised release, after a federal jury found him guilty of one count of
felon in possession of a firearm as an armed career criminal. 	See United States v.
Reed, Crim. No. 4:04-cr-429 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2005), at Dkt. 157. The judgment
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 24, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05143 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

is silent as to whether Reed's sentence was to run concurrently or consecutively to
any subsequent state-court sentence, and there was no discussion of the issue at
Reed's sentencing hearing. 	Id. at Dkts. 157, 197. 	Reed's judgment and sentence
were affirmed on appeal. 	See United States v. Reed, 277 F. App'x 357 (5th Cir.
2008) (per curiam).
Reed was released from prison to supervised release in August 2019. In July
2020, while serving his term of federal supervised release, Reed was arrested on
several state criminal charges and charged in Harris County Cause Number 1683 086.
See Inmate Search, https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov (visited Nov. 21, 2025). 	In April
2023, Reed was convicted on the state charges and sentenced to a seven-year prison
term. 	(Dkt. 5, p. 1). 	Reed alleges that the state court recommended that his state
sentence be served concurrently with his remaining federal sentence. 	(Id. at 10).
Reed is currently serving his state sentence at TDCJ's Terrell Unit in Rosharon,
Texas. 	(Id. at 1). 	Court records do not show that Reed is in federal custody at this
time, nor has his supervised release been revoked.
In his § 2241 petition, Reed asks this Court to amend his federal sentence
"nunc pro tune" to permit him to serve the remainder of his federal sentence
concurrently with his later-imposed state prison sentence. 	(Id. at 6). 	He also asks
this Court to order the federal Bureau of Prisons to permit him to serve the remainder
of his federal sentence in state prison. (Id.).
2/5
Case 4:25-cv-05143 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

II. 	DISCUSSION
A district court has no authority to give an inmate credit for time already
served or to otherwise administer his sentence. Instead, the authority to administer
a federal criminal sentence lies with the United States Attorney General, through the
Bureau of Prisons. 	See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992); United
States v. Aparicio, 963 F.3d 470,477 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Leal v. Tombone, 341
F.3d 427,428 (5th Cir. 2003)). Once the BOP makes a decision regarding a sentence
calculation, that decision is subject to judicial review. See Barden v. Keohane, 921
F.2d 476,478 (5th Cir. 1990). But until the BOP makes a final decision with respect
to a request regarding a sentence calculation, the prisoner cannot challenge the
administration of his sentence in federal court. See, e.g., Pierce v. Holder, 614 F.3d
158, 160 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see also Wilson, 503 U'.S. at 335 (noting that
a prisoner must exhaust all available administrative remedies through the BOP
before litigating the computation of his sentence in federal court). Before the BOP
makes a final decision, the claim is not ripe for review and must be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. See Pierce, 614 F.3d at 160.
In this case, administrative remedies are available to address Reed's request
through the BOP. "Under the BOP's nunc pro tune designation procedure set forth
in [BOP Program Statement] BOPPS 5160.05, 'where a federal sentence was
imposed before a state sentence, the BOP may indirectly award credit for time served
3/5
Case 4:25-cv-05143 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

in state prison by designating nunc pro tune the state prison as the place in which the
prisoner serves a portion of his federal sentence."' 	United States v. Jack, 566 F.
App'x 331, 332 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Pierce, 614 F.3d at 160).
BOPPS 5160.05 provides that an inmate "may request a nunc pro tune (i.e.,
occurring now as though it had occurred in the past) designation" listing a state
institution as his place of confinement, and "the Bureau must consider an inmate's
request." BOPPS 5160.05 § 9(b)(4). While a "district court has no authority under
BOPPS 5160.05 to make a nunc pro tune designation, [] it may review a challenge
to the BOP's refusal to make such a designation in a§ 2241 petition." Jack, 566 F.
App'x at 332; see also Pack v. Yusuf!, 218 F.3d 448,451 (5th Cir. 2000) (providing
that a writ of habeas corpus under§ 2241 is the appropriate vehicle to attack prison
authorities' determination of a sentence's duration).
In his petition, Reed does not allege that he has applied for a sentence
determination under the BOP's nunc pro tune designation procedure, nor does he
allege that BOP has made a ruling on any such application. Until such time as Reed
has exhausted these available administrative remedies ·with the BOP, his claim
concerning the structure of his sentences is not ripe for review. His petition for writ
of habeas corpus is premature and must be dismissed for lack of juriscliction.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
4/5
Case 4:25-cv-05143 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

1. 	Petitioner Keith Raye Reed's petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt.
1), is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
2. 	If Reed wishes to pursue this petition after exhausting his remedies with
the BOP, he must file a motion to reinstate within thirty (30) days of the BOP's
final decision.
3. 	Reed is ADVISED that any challenge to the BOP's calculation of his
sentencing credit must be filed in the district where he is incarcerated when he files
his petition. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
4. 	A certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary. 	Hunter v.
Tamez, 622 F.3d 427, 430 (5th Cir. 2010).
The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this order to the petitioner.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on ____1t,,.,--	___,_f	_____., 2025.
~~14dt::::..DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5/5
Case 4:25-cv-05143 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 5