Gregory David Werber v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lompoc

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 13, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-07018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07018-SB-SP Document 23 Filed 08/13/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:477

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 GREGORY DAVID WERBER, 6 Case No. 2:21-cv-07018-SB-SP

Petitioner, 7 8 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 9 WARDEN, United States Penitentiary, RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. Lompoc, 10 MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 Respondent. 12 13 14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of 15 Habeas Corpus, the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the 16 U.S. Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions 17 of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were directed, the Court 18 concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 19 Petitioner raised a single claim in his Petition—that the Respondent failed to 20 give him what he describes as his “Goldstein” credits for time he served many years 21 prior to the conviction for which he is currently serving time. Dkt. No. 1, at 3 22 (citing Goldstein v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 940 F. Supp. 1505 (C.D. Cal. 1996)). 23 Goldstein does not stand for the proposition that a defendant is entitled, as a matter 24 of statutory or constitutional law, to apply “excess” credits to custody served for 25 future crimes. Indeed, the district court in Goldstein offered no legal analysis at all, 26 relying instead on an agreement by the partes in the case to apply credit for time 27 served on a concededly illegal sentence. 28 Case 2:21-cv-07018-SB-SP Document 23 Filed 08/13/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:478

1 Nor has Petitioner demonstrated that the U.S. Constitution requires that the 2 || time served on a vacated state sentence must be applied to a federal sentence 3 || lawfully imposed for a subsequently committed federal crime. He argues that 4 || “[c]ontinued incarceration beyond the term imposed by a judge or established by 5 || the state is not penologically justified.” Dkt. No. 21, at 8. But that is not the 6 || situation here. Petitioner is not being held beyond the term of his federal sentence, 7 || and there is certainly penological justification for not providing credit to a released 8 || inmate against future crimes. An inmate who walks out the jail doors with credit in 3 || his pocket might get the idea that he has a license to commit another crime— 10 || especially if the maximum sentence does not exceed the amount of credit he is 11 || carrying. 12 Accordingly, the Court approves and accepts the Report and 13 || Recommendation, denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and directs that 14 || judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice. The 15 |) Clerk shall serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 16 || Recommendation, and the judgment in this case on Petitioner and counsel for 17 || Defendant. ‘8 | Dated: August 13, 2022 ~ OS. ° Stanley Blumenfeld, JSS 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28