Barreto v. Jeter

Fifth Circuit

Barreto v. Jeter

249 F. App'x 986

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 2007

Docket06-10416

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 F. App'x 986 (Barreto v. Jeter) 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

Barreto v. Jeter, 249 F. App'x 986 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Barreto, federal prisoner # 40040-080, was sentenced in 2002 to 85 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing that the 225 days that he spent in a community confinement facility prior to sentencing should be credited against his *987 sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585. He also asserted that his due process rights were violated because he was not properly advised prior to electing bail that the time he spent in the facility would not count against his sentence.

Barreto’s first argument is foreclosed by Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 58-63, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held that release on bail subject to restrictions, including confinement in a community treatment facility, is not official detention for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) and does not count towards the sentence imposed. Barreto concedes as much but argues that Koray was unfairly decided. Nevertheless, we are bound to follow Koray unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules it. See Medellin v. Dretke, 371 F.3d 270, 280 (5th Cir.2004).

We also reject Barreto’s contention that due process requires notice to a pretrial detainee that confinement while released on bail rather than official detention will not count towards the sentence. That possibility is too speculative to implicate the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Cucciniello v. Keller, 137 F.3d 721, 724-25 (2d Cir.1998); see also Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193-94 (5th Cir.1995) (addressing nature of liberty interest protected by due process).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Jose Barreto, federal prisoner # 40040-080, was sentenced in 2002 to 85 months in prison for possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing that the 225 days that he spent in a community confinement facility prior to sentencing should be credited against his *987 sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585. He also asserted that his due process rights were violated because he was not properly advised prior to electing bail that the time he spent in the facility would not count against his sentence.

Barreto’s first argument is foreclosed by Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 58-63, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held that release on bail subject to restrictions, including confinement in a community treatment facility, is not official detention for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) and does not count towards the sentence imposed. Barreto concedes as much but argues that Koray was unfairly decided. Nevertheless, we are bound to follow Koray unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules it. See Medellin v. Dretke, 371 F.3d 270, 280 (5th Cir.2004).

We also reject Barreto’s contention that due process requires notice to a pretrial detainee that confinement while released on bail rather than official detention will not count towards the sentence. That possibility is too speculative to implicate the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Cucciniello v. Keller, 137 F.3d 721, 724-25 (2d Cir.1998); see also Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193-94 (5th Cir.1995) (addressing nature of liberty interest protected by due process).

For the foregoing reasons, 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)

249 F. App'x 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barreto-v-jeter-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack