Marrow v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALMUMINUM MARROW,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN FCI SCHUYLKILL,
Respondent.
No. 4:25-CV-01569
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J ANUARY 30, 2026
Almuminum Marrow filed the instant pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution, Schuylkill, in Minersville, Pennsylvania. He asserts that the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to appropriately apply prior jail credit to his federal
sentence. Because Marrow is not entitled to the prior jail credit he seeks, the Court
will deny his Section 2241 petition without prejudice to his right to seek alternative
relief through BOP Program Statement 5160.05 regarding designation of a state
institution for concurrent service of a federal sentence.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2020, Marrow was arrested by New Jersey authorities and
charged with, among other things, resisting arrest and eluding law enforcement
while operating a motor vehicle after instruction to stop, in violation of N.J. S TAT .
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 8

2
ANN . § 2C:29-2(b) (case number W-2020-00178-0722). 1 He was granted pretrial
release on non-monetary conditions the following day and was released from
pretrial detention on September 11, 2020.2 However, on August 1, 2021, Marrow
was arrested again in New Jersey for receiving stolen property, obstructing the
administration of law, prohibited weapons, and unlawful possession of a weapon
(case number W-2021-007995-0714).3 This time, Marrow was ordered detained
during pretrial proceedings.4
Marrow was held in pretrial detention at Essex County Correctional Facility
in Newark, New Jersey from August 3, 2021, to June 20, 2024. 5 During this time,
a federal grand jury indicted Marrow for possession of a firearm and ammunition
by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).6 As required for the prosecution of
his federal case, federal authorities “borrowed” Marrow on multiple occasions, i.e.,
he was taken into temporary federal custody on mostly same-day writs of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum.7
1 	See Doc. 15-5 at 2.
2 	See id. at 4, 16-19.
3 	See id. at 5.
4 	See id. at 20-21.
5 	See id. at 4; Doc. 15-6 at 4.
6 	See United States v. Marrow, No. 2:22-CR-00401, Doc. 3 (D.N.J. June 9, 2022).
7 	See Doc. 15-6 at 3; Davis v. Sniezek, 403 F. App’x 738, 740 (3d Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential)
(“A state prisoner transferred to federal custody under a writ ad prosequendum to answer
federal charges is considered ‘on loan’ to federal authorities and remains in primary custody
of the state ‘unless and until the first sovereign relinquishes jurisdiction.’” (quoting Ruggiano
v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 125 n.1 (3d Cir. 2002), superseded in part on other grounds by U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3 App. Note 3(E) (2003))).
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Marrow eventually pled guilty to the Section 922(g) offense on November 7,
2023,8 and on June 20, 2024, he was sentenced by the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey to a term of 45 months’ incarceration. 9 The BOP
credited him with five days’ prior jail credit, from August 1, 2021, to August 2,
2021, and from June 21, 2024, to June 23, 2024, 10 and began running his 45-month
sentence on June 24, 2024.11
While his federal criminal case was pending, New Jersey officials dismissed
his related state criminal case for the August 2021 stolen property and firearm
offenses (case number W-2021-007995-0714) on March 3, 2022.12 Then, on June
24, 2024, the Superior Court of New Jersey sentenced Marrow to time served on
his guilty plea to the September 2020 offense of resisting arrest and eluding law
enforcement while operating a motor vehicle (case number W-2020-00178-
0722).13 The time-served sentence credited Marrow with 1056 days spent in
custody from September 9, 2020, through September 11, 2020, and August 3,
2021, through June 20, 2024,14 and the sentence was ordered to run concurrent to
his federal sentence. 15
8 	See Marrow, No. 2:22-CR-00401, Doc. 23 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2023).
9 	Id., Doc. 32 (D.N.J. June 24, 2024) (noting that sentence was pronounced on June 20, 2024).
10 	See Doc. 15-8 at 4.
11 	See id.
12 	See Doc. 15-5 at 5-7.
13 	See id. at 2-4.
14 	See id. at 4.
15 	See id. at 2.
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 8

4
On October 15, 2024, Marrow lodged a motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District of New Jersey (the federal
sentencing court), challenging his sentence calculation.16 In August 2025, the
District of New Jersey construed Marrow’s Section 2255 motion as a habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and transferred the petition to this Court—
Marrow’s district of confinement.17
Marrow’s petition contains very little explanation or argument. He appears
to contend that the BOP has improperly calculated his sentence by failing to credit
him with the 38 months he spent (mostly) in pretrial detention from “Aug[ust] 2,
2021, to Oct[ober] 1[], 2024,” referring to this time as “Federal Custody.” 18
The government timely responded to Marrow’s petition, maintaining that his
federal sentence has been correctly calculated. 19 Marrow did not file a traverse and
the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, his Section 2241 petition is ripe for
disposition.
II. 	D ISCUSSION
As best as the Court can discern, Marrow believes that he was in “[f]ederal
[c]ustody” from August 2021 to June 2024 based on the firearms charges, and thus
16 	See generally Doc. 1.
17 	See generally Doc. 2.
18 	See Doc. 1 at 4.
19 	See generally Doc. 15.
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 8

5
that presentence time should be credited to his 45-month federal sentence for the
Section 922(g) offense. 20 Marrow is incorrect on both points.
The record is clear that Marrow was first arrested and taken into custody by
state authorities for the August 2021 incident involving receipt of stolen property
and firearms offenses. Indeed, it was a New Jersey state court that denied his
release from pretrial detention on bail or non-monetary conditions. “The sovereign
that first acquires custody of a defendant is entitled to custody until any sentence
imposed is served.” 21 Marrow was only transferred to temporary federal custody
when he was “borrowed” on mostly same-day writs of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum for various proceedings in federal court. Those temporary transfers
did not affect the state’s primary custodial jurisdiction over him. 22 Rather, New
Jersey’s primary custody was not relinquished until Marrow was sentenced to time
served with an end-date of June 20, 2024, i.e., the date when his state obligation
was satisfied. 23
More importantly, Congress has expressly determined that the time Marrow
spent in state detention from August 3, 2021, to June 20, 2024—presentence time
20 	See Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 1-1.
21 	Allen v. Nash, 236 F. App’x 779, 783 (3d Cir. 2007) (nonprecedential) (citing Ponzi v.
Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260 (1922)).
22 	See Rios v. Wiley, 201 F.3d 257, 275 (3d Cir. 2000) (explaining that writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum “merely ‘loans’ the [state] prisoner to the federal authorities”), superseded on
other grounds as stated in United States v. Saintville, 218 F.3d 246, 249 (3d Cir. 2000).
23 	See Chambers v. Holland, 920 F. Supp. 618, 622 (M.D. Pa. 1996).
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 8

6
that was applied to his state sentence for the September 2020 offense of resisting
arrest and eluding law enforcement while operating a motor vehicle (case number
W-2020-00178-0722)—cannot also be applied as prior jail credit to his federal
sentence. Section 3585(b) of Title 18 of the United States Code explicitly states, in
pertinent part:
A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of
imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the
date the sentence commences . . . as a result of the offense for which
the sentence was imposed . . . that has not been credited against another
sentence. 24
Under the plain language of Section 3585(b), Marrow is not entitled to prior
custody credit for his time in state pretrial detention from August 3, 2021, to June
20, 2024, because that time has been credited to his state sentence in case number
W-2020-00178-0722. And the other few days that are not covered by the state
sentence in case number W-2020-00178-0722 (August 1 to August 2, 2021, and
June 21 to June 23, 2024) have been properly credited to Marrow’s federal
sentence.
This is not the end of the matter. While Marrow may not be entitled to prior
custody credit under Section 3585(b), he may be eligible to have the BOP
designate as his place of federal confinement—nunc pro tunc—the state institution
24 	18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (emphasis added); see Rios, 201 F.3d at 273 (noting that Congress “made
clear in section 3585(b) that a defendant could not receive double credit for his detention time”
(citing United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992))).
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 8

7
where he served his state sentence. BOP Program Statement 5160.05 provides that
when a federal sentence is imposed before a state sentence and the state court
clearly intends that its sentence is to run concurrent to the federal sentence, a
federal inmate may seek nunc pro tunc designation of the state institution for
concurrent service of his federal sentence. 25
Here, the circumstances of Marrow’s state and federal sentences appear to
permit him to seek such nunc pro tunc designation. Marrow was sentenced in
federal court on June 20, 2024, to 45 months’ incarceration for his Section 922(g)
offense. At that time, because his related state charges for the August 2021
firearms violations had been dismissed and he had not yet been sentenced for his
unrelated September 2020 offenses, the federal court had no authority to order its
term of imprisonment to run concurrently with a state sentence that may be
imposed in the future. 26 Four days later, the Superior Court of New Jersey
sentenced Marrow to time served on the September 2020 offense and specifically
ordered that this sentence was “to run concurrent” to his current “Federal
sentence.” 27 Although this state-court order is not binding on the federal court or
25 	See 	U.S. DEP ’ T OF JUSTICE , 	FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS , 	Program 	Statement 	5160.05
Designation of State Institution for Service of Federal Sentence, ¶ 9(4) (2003); Barden v.
Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1990).
26 	See Barden, 921 F.2d at 484 (noting that federal sentencing court “not only was unable to order
concurrency because it sentenced [Petitioner] before the state did but was actually powerless
to do so” (citation omitted)); Trice v. Grondolsky, Civ. No. 08-2968 (NLH), 2009 WL
3152116, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2009) (collecting cases).
27 	Doc. 15-5 at 2.
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 8

8
the BOP, 28 it is a factor to be considered by the BOP and the federal sentencing
court when reviewing a federal inmate’s request for nunc pro tunc designation. 29
In sum, while Marrow may not be entitled to prior custody credit under
Section 3585(b), he may be eligible to have the BOP designate—nunc pro tunc—
his state institution as his federal place of confinement for his federal sentence,
thereby altering his current sentencing calculations. Marrow’s Section 2241
petition will be denied without prejudice to his right to seek such nunc pro tunc
designation through the BOP.
III. 	C ONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Marrow’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Marrow, however, may seek nunc
pro tunc designation of a state institution for concurrent service of a federal
sentence as more fully described in BOP Program Statement 5160.05 and Barden
v. Keohane. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
28 	See Barden, 921 F.2d at 478 n.4 (“We recognize that neither the federal courts nor the [BOP]
are bound in any way by the state court’s direction that the state and federal sentences run
concurrently.” (citing U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2)); Del Guzzi v. United States, 980 F.2d 1269,
1272-73 (9th Cir. 1992).
29 	See BOP Program Statement 5160.05, ¶ 9(4)(b); Barden, 921 F.2d at 483.
Case 4:25-cv-01569-MWB-MP Document 16 Filed 01/30/26 Page 8 of 8