U.S. v. WISE

Case No. 8:14-CR-168-T-17TGW.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHRIS CHARLES WISE.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Carlton Curtiss Gammons , US Attorney's Office & Natalie Hirt Adams , US Attorney's Office.


ORDER

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. 41 Motion for Review of Jail Time Credit

Defendant Chris Charles Wise, pro se, requests review of jail time credit. Defendant Wise states that Defendant Wise was sentenced in this federal case, and then was sentenced by the Florida Department of Corrections; Defendant Wise further states that Defendant Wise signed an agreement to have the Florida and federal time run concurrently. Defendant Wise states that Defendant Wise is missing 22 months of jail time credit.

Defendant Wise was sentenced on October 14, 2014 on Counts One and Two of the Indictment to sixty-three months imprisonment, to run concurrently, with credit for time served to be calculated by the United States Bureau of Prisons, and to thirty-six months of supervised release on Counts One and Two, to run concurrently. (Dkts. 32, 35). Counsel for Defendant Wise orally moved for downward departure; the Court granted a two level downward departure (Dkt. 36, p. 3). Defendant's counsel noted no objection to the sentencing proceeding.

The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, and not the district courts, is authorized under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3585(b) to compute sentence credit awards after sentencing. The Attorney General delegated his authority in this area to the BOP. See United States v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1555-56 (11th Cir. 1990). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the granting of credit for time served is in the first instance, an administrative, not a judicial, function. United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir. 1989). Further, an inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies with the BOP before seeking judicial relief. United States v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1555 (11th Cir. 1990); 28 C.F.R. Sec. 542. 10, et seq. The district court does not have jurisdiction to consider a defendant's claim if he fails to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id.

Defendant Wise does not allege that Defendant Wise has exhausted Defendant's administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons.

After consideration, the Court denies Defendant Wise's Motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that pro se Defendant Chris Charles Wise's Motion for Review of Jail Time Credit (Dkt. 41) is denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; Defendant Wise shall exhaust all administrative remedies that are available with the Bureau of Prisons. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to pro se Defendant Wise by U.S. Mail at the address below.

DONE and ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases