United States District Court, D. Arizona
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, filed on November 29, 2016. (Doc.
1) The petitioner, Luis Fernando Sanora, objects to the
Bureau of Prisons' refusal to grant him 22 months of
respondent, Felipe Martinez, filed an answer opposing the
petition on February 13, 2017. (Doc. 10) Sanora filed a reply
on February 20, 2017. (Doc. 13)
to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for a Report and
Recommendation. The petition should be denied on the merits.
of the Case
8, 2010, Sanora received a 50-month sentence of imprisonment
plus three years' supervised release in the District of
Arizona for Possession of Firearms and Ammunition by a
Convicted Felon. (Doc. 10-2, p. 3)
August 17, 2012, he was sentenced in the Southern District of
Illinois for Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana. (Doc. 10-2,
p. 3) The judgment reads in pertinent part as follows:
The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the
United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total
338 months. This terms consists of a term of 360 months, from
that the Court will grant credit for 22 months served on a
related state [sic] case imposed in Docket Number
4:08CR01100-001-TUC-FRZ, in the District of Arizona. The term
of imprisonment imposed by this judgment shall run
concurrently with that imposed in the District of Arizona.
(Doc. 10, p. 3) This paragraph appears on page 2 of the
judgment in the section entitled “Imprisonment.”
(Doc. 10-2, p. 17) Afterwards there are sections entitled
“Supervised Release, ” “Standard Conditions
of Supervision, ” “Additional Supervised Release
Terms, ” “Criminal Monetary Penalties, ”
and “Schedule of Payments.” Id., pp.
18-21 On September 4, 2013, the Illinois court reduced
Sanora's sentence on motion by the government to 150
months. (Doc. 10, p. 2) The court's order further
explained that, “All other terms and conditions remain
the same.” Id.
11, 2015, the Illinois court granted Sanora a second
reduction. (Doc. 10, p. 3) His sentence was reduced
“from 150 months to 100 months.” Id. The
order explained that, “Except as otherwise provided,
all provisions of the judgment dated 08/17/2012 shall remain
in effect.” Id.
filed a motion for clarification arguing that his new
100-month sentence should be credited with the 22 months
previously served in the Arizona case. (Doc. 10, p. 3) In the
alternative, he requested that the court amend its judgment
and give him a sentence of 78 months. Id. The
sentencing court dismissed the motion stating it had no
authority to give him credit for time served because that
authority is vested in the Attorney General or in its
designee, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Id.
The court did not explicitly explain why it would not amend
its judgment. (Doc. 10-2, pp. 23-24)
BOP's records indicate that Sanora is now serving a
100-month sentence that commenced on August 17, 2012, the
date he was originally sentenced by the Illinois court. (Doc.
10, pp. 3-4) He has not been given credit for time served.
Sanora objected administratively to the BOP's sentencing
calculation but without success. (Doc. 10, p. 4)
November 29, 2016, Sanora filed the pending petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging the BOP's sentencing calculation. (Doc. 1) He
argues this court should grant the petition, direct the BOP
to run Sanora's sentences for the Arizona and Illinois
convictions concurrently, and credit him with the 22 months
he was in custody for the Arizona conviction. Id. In