Arturo Solis v. M. A. Stancil

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ARTURO SOLIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
M. A. STANCIL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 20-1185
(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-02842-DDD)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This appeal stems from the administration of Mr. Arturo Solis’s
convictions and sentences in state and federal courts. Mr. Solis filed a
federal habeas petition, claiming that authorities hadn’t properly credited
time on his federal sentence. The district court denied habeas relief, and
we affirm.
* This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 25, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1185 Document: 010110526894 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
I. Standard of Review
This Court conducts de novo review of the denial of habeas relief.
See Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir. 2010).
II. Sentence Computation
While serving his state sentence, Mr. Solis was charged with a
federal offense. Doc. 55-1 at ¶ 7. The new federal charge led to his arrest
and temporary transfer to federal custody. This transfer required Mr. Solis
to spend roughly seven months in federal prison, where he waited for his
federal trial to start. Doc. 55-1 at ¶¶ 7, 13. Mr. Solis claims that his federal
sentence should have included at least some of the time in this seven-
month period. Appellant’s Opening Brief at 2–3. We disagree.
The federal sentence did not start when Mr. Solis entered federal
custody. At that point, he had not been convicted in federal court, so he
could not have been serving a federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a);
see United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir. 1980).
The seven-month period ended with Mr. Solis’s federal sentencing.
In determining the sentence, the federal district court had to decide
whether the federal sentence would run concurrently with or consecutively
to the state sentence. The court decided to run the federal sentence
consecutively to the state sentence. So the court ordered that Mr. Solis
wouldn’t start serving his federal sentence until he had finished serving his
state sentence. Doc. 55-1 at ¶ 14. Given this order, Mr. Solis could not
Appellate Case: 20-1185 Document: 010110526894 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
start serving his federal sentence until he finished serving his state
sentence. So he didn’t start serving his federal sentence until after the
seven-month period had expired.
Mr. Solis claims that both the district court and prison authorities
erred because the federal sentence should have run concurrently with the
state sentence. But Mr. Solis waived these claims by omitting them in his
habeas petition. Owens v. Trammell, 792 F.3d 1234, 1246 (10th Cir. 2015).
Even in the absence of waiver, however, these claims would fail for
two reasons. First, the sentencing court had discretion to run the sentences
consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Second, when a federal court has
ordered sentences to run consecutively, prison authorities cannot
unilaterally change the sentence. United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 1240,
1242 (10th Cir. 2010). For both reasons, we would have rejected Mr.
Solis’s two claims even if he had not waived them.
Affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1185 Document: 010110526894 Date Filed: 05/25/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --