United States v. Converse

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          B. Lynn Winmill Chief U.S. District Court Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are two letters from Defendant Kristopher Converse asking the Court to clarify that his federal sentence should run concurrently with a state sentence. See Dkts. 167, 168. The Court does not have authority to either modify its judgment or to grant or compute sentence credits and will therefore deny the request.

         BACKGROUND

         Mr. Converse is a federal inmate at FCI Florence, Colorado. He pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge, and in February 2011 this Court sentenced him to 90 months' incarceration. See Plea Agreement, Dkt. 48; Plea Hearing Minutes, Dkt. 57; Judgment, Dkt. 84.

         At the time of sentencing, Converse was facing probation violations - based on conduct related to the offense in this case - in two Idaho state court cases. In one of these cases, the state court had previously sentenced Converse to two to five years in prison, and in the other, Converse had received a three-to-seven-year sentence. See Feb. 7, 2011 Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) ¶¶ 52, 54. Both state sentences were imposed in 2007, and both state prison terms were suspended following periods of retained jurisdiction. See id.

         Converse was arrested in November 2009. He had not been federally indicted at that time, but an arrest warrant for a probation violation had issued in one of the state court cases mentioned above. See Id. ¶ 52. Converse was apparently held in Bannock County Jail beginning in November 2009, and the Court is presuming he remained there until February 2011, when this Court imposed sentence. See Id. at 1.

         In March 2011, roughly two weeks after this Court imposed sentence, the state court sentenced Mr. Converse on the probation violations. In both cases, the previously suspended prison sentences (two to five years and three to seven years) were imposed. Converse says he thought his federal and state sentences were intended to be served concurrently. This Court, however, did not order Converse's federal sentence to be served concurrently with any anticipated state sentences. Further, other than Converse's assertion that he thought his federal and state court sentences would run concurrently, there is no evidence before the Court indicating that the state court intended the sentences to run concurrently with the federal sentence.

         In any event, according to the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) calculations, Converse's federal sentence began on April 11, 2012. BOP calculated that Converse would complete his federal custody term on November 30, 2017, but Converse was charged with escape, and on February 30, 2018, this Court sentenced Converse to 12 months plus one day in a separate case. See United States v. Converse, No. 4:17-cr-285- BLW (D. Idaho). Thus, as of this writing, Converse remains incarcerated.

         DISCUSSION

         Converse raises two issues. First, he believes his federal sentence should have been served concurrently with the sentences imposed by the state court in March 2011. Second, he argues that, at a minimum, he should get credit for a portion of the time he served in Bannock County Jail, i.e., after he was federally indicted and before the state court or federal court imposed sentence.

         Credit for prior custody is addressed in 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which states:

(b) Credit for prior custody. - A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to ...