United States of America v. Jayconus Cornellius Scott

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6524
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAYCONUS CORNELLIUS SCOTT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8)
Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jayconus Cornellius Scott, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun
Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jayconus Cornellius Scott appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion seeking credit toward his prison
sentence imposed after the revocation of his term of supervised
release. Upon revocation of Scott’s supervised release, which
was imposed as part of his sentence for conspiracy to defraud
the United States, the district court sentenced Scott to six
months’ imprisonment in February 2011. In April 2011, Scott
moved the district court for credit toward the revocation
sentence, arguing that he was entitled to credit for time served
in a state prison from September 22, 2010 until sentencing on
February 14, 2011.
District courts, however, are not authorized to
compute credit for time spent in official detention when
sentencing a convict. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329,
333 (1992). Rather, only the Attorney General, acting through
the Bureau of Prisons, may compute sentencing credit. Id. at
334-35. The district court was therefore without the authority
to award Scott credit for the time he spent in state custody.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Scott, No. 7:08-cr-00211-HMH-8 (D.S.C. Apr. 7,
2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --