Willie J. Henry v. Ronnie Holt

DLD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4517
___________
WILLIE J. HENRY,
Appellant
v.
RONNIE HOLT;
BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-1293)
District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 28, 2008
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 31, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
The procedural history of this case and the details of appellant’s claims are well
known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough memorandum, and need

-- 1 of 2 --

2
not be discussed at length. Briefly, Willie Henry filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 in which he argued that his federal sentence should be credited with time spent in
state custody. He also contended that his sentencing court misapplied the sentencing
guidelines. The District Court denied the petition, and Henry filed a timely notice of
appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d
Cir. 2002). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant can only receive credit towards a
federal sentence for prior custody “that has not been credited against another sentence.”
Henry does not dispute that the time at issue was credited towards his state sentence.
Thus, it cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. We also agree with the District
Court that Henry’s challenge to the sentencing court’s application of the sentencing
guidelines is not properly raised in a § 2241 petition.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s October 3, 2007 order.
See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 2 of 2 --