Palmer v. Carter

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TYLER PALMER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-3216-JWL
)
C. CARTER, Warden, FCI-Leavenworth, )
)
Respondent. )
)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which
he challenges the calculation of his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
denies the petition.
Petitioner, who is presently incarcerated within this judicial district, is serving a
120-month term of imprisonment imposed on January 17, 2019, in the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska. That term was ordered to be served concurrently
with state sentences imposed on December 14, 2017. By the instant petition, petitioner
claims that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has improperly denied him credit for all of his jail
time served with state authorities. Respondent filed an answer to the petition, and
petitioner has filed a reply, and the matter is therefore ripe for ruling.
Habeas corpus relief may be appropriate under Section 2241 if a prisoner shows that
he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Case 5:25-cv-03216-JWL Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Petitioner has not shown, however, that the BOP has violated federal law by failing to
award petitioner credit for previous jail time.
It appears from the record of petitioner’s administrative appeals that he seeks credit
specifically for his time in state custody between the date his state sentences were imposed
and the date his federal sentence was imposed. Respondent has submitted evidence of the
following: (1) petitioner has received credit against his federal sentence for the time he
spent in state custody after his federal sentencing on January 17, 2019, pursuant to a “nunc
pro tunc designation” of his state facility as a place in which petitioner served his federal
sentence; (2) petitioner has also received credit for 23 days spent in state custody after the
commission of his federal offense but before his state sentences commenced (from
November 21, 2017, to December 13, 2017); and (3) petitioner has not received credit for
the period between the dates of his state sentencing and his federal sentencing, in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), because petitioner received credit against his state
sentences for that period. See id. (a defendant shall receive credit for certain time in
detention prior to the date of sentencing that has not been credited against another
sentence). Thus, respondent has shown that petitioner’s sentence has been properly
calculated and that he is not entitled to the credit sought.
Petitioner appears to argue that because his federal sentence was ordered to be
served concurrently with his state sentences, he is entitled to federal credit for all time
served on those state sentences. As the Court has previously explained, however, a
defendant’s federal sentence runs concurrently only with the unserved portion of the earlier
sentence, not with the entirety of the earlier sentence, because a federal sentence cannot
Case 5:25-cv-03216-JWL Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
commence before the date of its imposition. See Walker v. Hudson, 2024 WL 407469, at
*1-2 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2024) (Lungstrum, J.) (citing cases). Thus, petitioner is not entitled
to credit for time credited against his state sentences.
Accordingly, petitioner has failed to show that the BOP has violated federal law in
calculating and administering his sentence, and the Court therefore denies the petition for
habeas relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
/s/ John W. Lungstrum
Hon. John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03216-JWL Document 14 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 3