Henry Potwin v. Linda Sanders

231 F. App'x 538
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 16, 2007
Docket06-2213
StatusUnpublished

This text of 231 F. App'x 538 (Henry Potwin v. Linda Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henry Potwin v. Linda Sanders, 231 F. App'x 538 (8th Cir. 2007).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Henry Potwin appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he claims that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) improperly denied him credit toward his federal sentence for time previously served while in state custody. Potwin claims, among other things, that at his federal sentencing hearing the court ordered the BOP to credit him the time served.

We agree with the district court that Potwin’s argument fails because the time at issue had been credited by the State of Texas to his state parole-violation sentence and may not be double counted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (“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 ... that has not been credited against another sentence.”); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (§ 3585(b) makes clear that defendant cannot receive double credit for detention time). We also agree with the district court that the Attorney General through the BOP (not the sentencing court) has the authority to award credit under section 3585(b) for time served. See id. at 333-36, 112 S.Ct. 1351; cf. United States v. Bradley, 978 F.2d 1029, 1030-31 (8th Cir.1992) (vacating district court’s orders denying defendants credit for time served in state custody because BOP had authority to make determination and had concluded credit was deserved).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Related

United States v. Wilson
503 U.S. 329 (Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 F. App'x 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-potwin-v-linda-sanders-ca8-2007.