United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION & ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
CLARIFY SENTENCE (DKT. 102)
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Andreas Brooks pled guilty to one count of possession of a
stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Dkt.
84). He was sentenced to two years in prison and three years
of supervised release. See 11/21/2016 Amended
Judgment (Dkt. 101). This matter is now before the Court on
Brooks's Motion to Clarify Sentence (Dkt. 102). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court denies Brooks's
April 20, 2011, Brooks was charged with being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g). See Indictment (Dkt. 3). The charge related
to an October 25, 2009 incident when police found marijuana
and a stolen firearm in Brooks's car. At the time, Brooks
was on parole; he was returned to state custody in late 2010.
After he was indicted on federal charges, Brooks consented to
an order of detention pending trial. See Consent
Order of Detention (Dkt. 6). Brooks remained incarcerated in
state prison until February 5, 2014, at which time he was
transferred to federal custody. He was released on federal
bond on February 6, 2014. See 2/6/2014 Order (Dkt.
pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(j), on March 20, 2014. See Plea Agreement
(Dkt. 84). The guideline imprisonment range was 92 to 115
months' imprisonment. See 1/6/2016 Hr'g Tr.
at 5 (Dkt. 106). At sentencing, which took place on January
6, 2016, the Government recommended a guideline range of 55
to 69 months. See id. at 8. The Court sentenced him
to 36 months in prison and three years on supervised release.
See Judgment (Dkt. 93). The Court later reduced
Brooks's sentence to two years in prison and three years
on supervised release (Dkt. 101). Brooks now argues that the
Court failed to order his sentence to run concurrently with
his state parole violation term and asks the Court to issue a
second amended judgment. Def. Mot. at 1.
argues that this Court has authority to correct its judgment
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, which provides
that the court “may at any time correct a clerical
error in a judgment, or, or other part of the record, or
correct an error in the record arising from oversight or
omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Brooks states that the
Court's failure to run his federal sentence concurrently
with his state parole violation “has resulted in the
Bureau of Prisons refusal to credit him any pre-trial
detention credit but one day in the case herein;” that
is, for the time he spent in federal custody on February 6,
2014. See Def. Mot. at 2-3; see also
Sentence Monitoring Computation Data as of 09-05-2017, Ex. A
to Def. Mot. (Dkt. 102). In support, Brooks cites Overton
v. United States, No. 13-00023, 2013 WL 1965134 (M.D.
Tenn. May 10, 2013).
Government responds that this Court already took Brooks'
time in state custody into account when sentencing him on
January 6, 2016. See Gov't Resp. at 5 (Dkt.
109). Brooks' original sentence was more than six years
less than the maximum allowed by the Rule 11 Plea Agreement,
and more than four years less than the low end of the
advisory guideline range. Id. at 5-6. Thus, the
Government argues, by sentencing Brooks to three years in
prison, the Court was accounting for the time he had
previously spent in state custody. Id.
Government also argues that this Court does not have
jurisdiction over Brooks' claim. Id. at 7. The
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), not the sentencing
judge, computes and applies the credit. Id. at 6-7.
A prisoner may only seek judicial view of this computation
after exhausting all available administrative remedies, and
Brooks does not allege that he has done so. Id. at
reply, Brooks asserts that he has exhausted all
administrative remedies, and attaches several documents in
support. Brooks also separately submitted additional
documents that he says show his attempts “to get the
BOP to honor the administrative remedy process.”
See Supp. Br. (Dkt. 115).
Court declines to grant Brooks' requested relief. At
sentencing, this Court commented on the time that Brooks
spent in state custody:
The Court believes that the sentence it will hand down
shortly is a sentence that takes into account all of the
factors and accomplishes the goals that the statute sets out.
The Court takes into account as well all of the arguments
that were advanced by Mr. Korn in his sentencing memorandum
including the argument that the defendant did spend a
considerable amount of time in state prison in a way that
does relate to our case. Although he doesn't formally
receive credit for that time, it was a significant period of
time. I believe the actual calculation is 1, 197 days or very
close to that and under the guidelines, Section 5G1.3(b), the
Court is permitted to take that into account and defense
counsel also referenced a Sixth Circuit case that notes the
same thing. That case is The United States v. Recla,
560 F.3d, 539, a Sixth Circuit decision from 2009.
1/6/2016 Hr'g Tr. at 12. The Court did take into account
Brooks' time spent in state custody, and for that reason
handed down a sentence that was considerably less than both
the suggested guideline range and the Government's
suggested sentence. Brooks' sentence was, therefore, not
a clerical error that needs to be corrected.
as the Government notes, this Court does not have
jurisdiction over a claim for sentence credit. “The
power to grant credit for time served lies solely with the
Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons, and a district
court is therefore not authorized to award credit at
sentencing.” U.S. v. Noel, 372 Fed. App'x
586, 590 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing U.S. v. Crozier,
259 F.3d 503, 520 (6th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotations
omitted). A prisoner who seeks to challenge the computation
of his credit may seek administrative review and then, when
he has exhausted his administrative remedies, ...