Andrew Siebert v. Rodney Chandler

Fifth Circuit

Andrew Siebert v. Rodney Chandler

571 F. App'x 328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2014

Docket13-10604

StatusUnpublished

This text of 571 F. App'x 328 (Andrew Siebert v. Rodney Chandler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrew Siebert v. Rodney Chandler, 571 F. App'x 328 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Andrew Siebert, federal prisoner # 33672-177, was convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit and committing wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud and was sentenced to a total of 60 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Siebert now appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he argued that he was entitled to credit for time served during his release on bail to home confinement. Although he also asserted in his petition that the district court “failed to convey to him the consequences of electing bail” and that the oral pronouncement of sentence conflicted with the written judgment regarding the term of supervised release, he does not challenge the district court’s resolution of those claims and has therefore abandoned them on appeal. See Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898, 901 (5th Cir.2007).

As for Siebert’s argument that he was entitled to credit towards his sentence for the time he served in home confinement, his argument is without merit. See Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 57-65, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995). Before surrendering to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for service of his sentence, Sie- *329 bert was released on bail, subject to home confinement. Because he was not committed to the custody of the Attorney General or subject to the BOP’s control, he was not in “official detention” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which provides that a defendant is entitled to credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has served in “official detention prior to the date the sentence commences.” See Koray, 515 U.S. at 57-58, 115 S.Ct. 2021. Thus, Siebert was not entitled to credit against his sentence for the time spent in home confinement. Id. at 58-65, 115 S.Ct. 2021. Further, although Siebert points to the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3588 in support of his argument, none of the provisions Siebert cites for support relate to whether he served time in “official detention” prior to the date his sentence commenced. See § 3585(b); Koray, 515 U.S. at 58-65, 115 S.Ct. 2021.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Andrew Siebert, federal prisoner # 33672-177, was convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit and committing wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud and was sentenced to a total of 60 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Siebert now appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he argued that he was entitled to credit for time served during his release on bail to home confinement. Although he also asserted in his petition that the district court “failed to convey to him the consequences of electing bail” and that the oral pronouncement of sentence conflicted with the written judgment regarding the term of supervised release, he does not challenge the district court’s resolution of those claims and has therefore abandoned them on appeal. See Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898, 901 (5th Cir.2007).

As for Siebert’s argument that he was entitled to credit towards his sentence for the time he served in home confinement, his argument is without merit. See Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 57-65, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995). Before surrendering to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for service of his sentence, Sie- *329 bert was released on bail, subject to home confinement. Because he was not committed to the custody of the Attorney General or subject to the BOP’s control, he was not in “official detention” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which provides that a defendant is entitled to credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has served in “official detention prior to the date the sentence commences.” See Koray, 515 U.S. at 57-58, 115 S.Ct. 2021. Thus, Siebert was not entitled to credit against his sentence for the time spent in home confinement. Id. at 58-65, 115 S.Ct. 2021. Further, although Siebert points to the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3588 in support of his argument, none of the provisions Siebert cites for support relate to whether he served time in “official detention” prior to the date his sentence commenced. See § 3585(b); Koray, 515 U.S. at 58-65, 115 S.Ct. 2021.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F. App'x 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-siebert-v-rodney-chandler-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack