Robert Clinkenbeard v. Katie Murdock

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-3127
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-3127 ___________________________

Robert Joseph Dale Clinkenbeard

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Katie Murdock

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: March 19, 2025 Filed: March 27, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Clinkenbeard appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking to compel the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to allow him to earn First

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. Step Act (FSA) time credits. In 2018, Clinkenbeard pleaded guilty to three offenses and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences and a consecutive 60-month sentence for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The BOP aggregated his sentences and determined he was ineligible to earn FSA credits based on his section 924(c) conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(xxii). Clinkenbeard argues that he has completed his sentence for the section 924(c) offense and is therefore eligible to earn FSA credits against his other two sentences.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Clinkenbeard’s petition, as the BOP correctly treated his prison terms as a single aggregate sentence for all 3 offenses, and therefore properly denied him FSA credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c) (multiple terms of imprisonment ordered to run consecutively or concurrently shall be treated for administrative purposes as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment); Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of dismissal of § 2241 petition).

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

-2-