United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is Defendant Stephen Gary Graf's pro se
Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to the First Step Act.
Dkt. 46. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court
finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further
delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Court will decide the motion without oral argument. Dist.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For reasons set forth below,
the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.
April 24, 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Graf for
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine and
Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance. Dkt. 1. The
Court ordered Graf's release to pretrial supervision on
May 17, 2018, with placement in the location monitoring
program on home detention. Dkt. 13. Graf pled guilty to the
charge of Possession with Intent to Distribute
Methamphetamine, and on December 13, 2018, the Court
sentenced Graf to 63 months imprisonment and four years of
supervised release. Dkt. 29. Graf remained on home detention
pending prison designation by the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) until January 23, 2019, when he
self-surrendered to federal prison at FCI Englewood,
Littleton, Colorado. Dkt. 31.
20, 2019, Graf filed a letter with the Court requesting that
he receive credit towards his time served on home
confinement. Dkt. 46. According to Graf, he was not credited
for his time spent on home confinement from March 18, 2018 to
January 23, 2019. Graf argues that the First Step Act made
home confinement a place of confinement for a prisoner to
serve his federal sentence in BOP custody and so he should
receive credit for his time served on home confinement. The
Court construes Graf's letter as a motion to reduce
sentence pursuant to the First Step Act. Graf did not state
in his motion whether he sought any administrative remedies
prior to seeking relief with the Court.
the Court must consider whether it has authority to grant
credit for time served. “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 the date the
sentence commences . . . as a result of the offense for which
the sentence was imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
However, “§ 3585(b) does not authorize a district
court to compute the credit at sentencing.” United
States v. Wilson, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 1354 (1992);
accord United States v. Checchini, 967 F.2d 348, 350
(9th Cir. 1992) (sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to
grant defendant the requested credit). “Rather, the
Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, is charged
in the first instance with determining the amount of the
defendant's credit for time served.” United
States v. Demers, 992 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, a
defendant must “exhaust his administrative remedies
before he can petition for judicial review of the Attorney
General's denial (if any) of credit for time
served.” Checchini, 967 F.2d at 350. Here, the
Government contends that Graf has not exhausted his
significantly, this action is filed in the wrong district.
Generally, a prisoner may challenge his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. But where a prisoner argues he
is entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent in
custody prior to sentencing, he is challenging the execution
of his sentence rather than the sentence itself. U.S. v.
Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). In such
circumstances, the prisoner must petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. The
Supreme Court has held that a writ under § 2241 must
issue from the court with jurisdiction over the
prisoner's custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973); see
also Brown v. U.S., 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980).
does not identify §§ 2255, 2241, or any other legal
basis for his Motion. However, he asks the Court to credit
the time he served under home confinement, both prior to and
after his sentencing, towards his time served. As the Ninth
Circuit found in Giddings, this issue concerns the
execution of a defendant's sentence. 740 F.2d at 772. As
such, it is properly raised under § 2241. Id. A
petition under § 2241 must be filed in the district
court in the district where defendant is confined.
Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. According to the Court's
records, that district is in Colorado, not Idaho.
these reasons, the Court will deny Grafs Motion. Nothing in
this Order precludes Graf from filing a proper motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the appropriate district.
Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to the
First Step Act. (Dkt. 46) ...