JEREMY SCOTT BECKER v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 31, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00058
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:04-CR-186 JCM (BNW)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 JEREMY SCOTT BECKER,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is defendant Jeremy Scott Becker’s motion to vacate, set aside, 14 or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 109). The government filed a response 15 (ECF No. 113), to which Becker replied (ECF No. 114). 16 Also before the court is the government’s motion to file a sur-reply (ECF No. 115). 17 Becker responded. (ECF No. 116). 18 I. Background 19 Becker was criminally convicted in both state and federal court. Becker was sentenced 20 first in federal court on August 29, 2005, for a bank-robbery conviction. (ECF No. 71). He was 21 then sentenced in state court on September 1, 2005, for convictions on multiple counts of armed 22 robbery. (ECF No. 109-5). 23 Both courts sentenced Becker to terms of incarceration. Becker’s state court judgment 24 specified that his state sentences would be served consecutively to his federal sentence. (ECF 25 No. 109-6). Becker served his state sentences first, which concluded on July 11, 2021. (ECF 26 No. 109, at 7). He was then immediately transferred to the Bureau of Prisons to serve his federal 27 sentence. (Id.). 28 . . . 1 II. Discussion 2 Becker argues in his Section 2255 motion that his federal sentence actually began on 3 August 29, 2005, when he was first remanded into federal custody after his sentencing hearing. 4 (ECF No. 109, at 9). Essentially, Becker is seeking double credit against both his state and 5 federal sentences for the period between August 2005 and August 2008. According to Becker, 6 he was technically in federal custody beginning August 29, 2005, and he therefore served his 7 federal sentence while at the Nevada Department of Corrections serving his state sentence. 8 “Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the 9 sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 10 sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. 11 Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). In other words, Section 2241 12 petitions must be brought in the district where the defendant is confined while Section 2255 13 petitions must be filed in the court where the defendant was sentenced. “Thus, in order to 14 determine whether jurisdiction is proper, a court must first determine whether a habeas petition is 15 filed pursuant to § 2241 or § 2255 before proceeding to any other issue.” Id. 16 Federal courts are “under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction.” 17 Id. at 865. Even though Becker styled his motion as one under Section 2255, the court must 18 nonetheless satisfy itself that his petition truly falls under that section, as opposed to Section 19 2241, by conducting its own inquiry. See id. (“Because Congress made a deliberate choice to 20 give jurisdiction over § 2241 petitions and § 2255 motions to different courts, a district court is 21 obligated to determine whether a petition falls under § 2241…or under § 2255.”). 22 Here, Becker does not challenge the constitutional validity of the sentence imposed by 23 this court. Becker’s argument for double credit should have been brought as a petition under 24 Section 2241 because his motion does not attack the legality of the underlying sentence, but 25 rather its execution. See, e.g., Johnson v. Gill, 883 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming a district 26 court’s denial of a § 2241 petition on substantially similar facts); Sampson v. United States, No. 27 18-CR-2095-GPC, 2022 WL 2181690, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2022) (construing § 2241, rather 28 than § 2255, to apply to a defendant’s argument regarding time credits under the First Step Act). 1 The sentencing court in this case is not the custodial court. Although this court sentenced 2 Becker in 2005, he is in the custody of a facility within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of 3 California. (ECF No. 1113, at 3–4). Accordingly, Becker’s motion fails under Section 2255 and 4 if he wishes to proceed under Section 2241, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear that petition. 5 III. Conclusion 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Becker’s motion (ECF 8 No. 109) to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government’s motion to file a surreply (ECF No. 10 115) is DENIED as moot. 11 DATED October 31, 2023.

12 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28