Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Entzel

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg

December 13, 2019

MELINDA SMITH, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN ENTZEL OF SFF HAZELTON, Respondent.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          GINA M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (''R&R'') of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 15. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R on June 21, 2019. In the R&R, he recommends that the Petitioner's § 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

         I. Standard of Review

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a Petitioner's right to appeal this Court's Order. 28.U.S.C..'.636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

         Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen plus three days of the Petitioner being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner by certified mail on June 21, 2019. ECF No. 15. The Petitioner accepted service on June 26, 2019. ECF No. 16. On July 11, 2019, the Court granted the Petitioner an extension of time to file objections. ECF No. 19. The Petitioner filed objections on August 19, 2019. ECF No. 21. Accordingly, the Court will review the portions of the R&R to which the Petitioner objects de novo.

         II. Background

         On April 16, 2018, the pro se Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of her sentence. ECF No. 1. In her petition, the Petitioner asserted three grounds for relief. In ground one of her petition, the Petitioner asserts that it is her “fundamental right to receive credit for time served prior to sentencing.” Id. at 5. In ground two of her petition, the Petitioner asserts that her jail credit and good conduct credit have been miscalculated because she should be released around April 14, 2020, not May 14, 2021 as calculated by the Bureau of Prisons. Id. at 6. In ground three of her petition, the Petitioner asserts that her “computation begins on the date [she was] received in custody.” Id. The Petitioner requests that she “be credited the 348 days [she] was in Federal Custody awaiting sentencing and [her] 329 days for Good Conduct Time which totals 677 days.” Id. at 8.

         Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the facts as explained in the R&R accurately and succinctly describe the circumstances underlying the Petitioner's claims. For ease of review, the Court incorporates those facts herein; however, it will briefly outline the most relevant facts of this case.

         On April 13, 2015, an Indictment was returned in the Western District of Virginia against the Petitioner. The following day, the Petitioner was taken into custody. On May 19, 2015, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement with the Government. On March 23, 2016, the Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 84 months.

         III. Applicable Law

         The Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons, has responsibility for calculating a defendant's jail credit. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-32 (1992). When calculating a defendant's credit for time served, the BOP should follow 18 U.S.C. § 3585, which provides:

(a) Commencement of sentence - A sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence, at the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.
(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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.