From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Apr 27, 1992
959 F.2d 211 (11th Cir. 1992)

Summary

holding that the exhaustion requirement in § 2241 is jurisdictional, but relying on a case addressing the exhaustion requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

Summary of this case from Lueth v. Beach

Opinion

No. 91-5738. Non-Argument Calendar.

April 27, 1992.

Stephen Finta, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.

Dexter Lehtinen, Linda Collins Hertz, U.S. Attys., Dawn Bowen, and Carol Herman, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.


This appeal concerns denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm.

Petitioner Ivan Gonzalez was convicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute three kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On December 29, 1988 he was sentenced pursuant to pre-guidelines law to five years imprisonment and four years of supervised release.

Gonzalez appealed his conviction, challenging the district court's denial of his request for a supplemental jury instruction. He did not challenge his sentence. This court affirmed the conviction. U.S. v. Gonzalez, 886 F.2d 1324 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 1989).

The U.S. Parole Commission calculated a presumptive parole date of May 30, 1990. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons did not, however, release petitioner on this date, and he remains incarcerated.

In February 1991 Gonzalez filed in the district court a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He asserted that because his presumptive release date had passed, he need not exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the district court.

Courts have original jurisdiction over imposition of a sentence. The Bureau of Prisons is, however, responsible for computing that sentence and applying appropriate good time credit. U.S. v. Martinez, 837 F.2d 861, 865-66 (9th Cir. 1988). The Bureau of Prisons has established regulations that set forth the procedures that a prisoner must follow before seeking relief from a district court. U.S. v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir. 1990). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional. Id.

Petitioner relies upon cases in which the court resentenced a defendant. Those cases do not deal with computation of sentences by administrative agencies. See e.g., U.S. v. Whittington, 918 F.2d 149 (11th Cir. 1990); U.S. v. Jones, 722 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Apr 27, 1992
959 F.2d 211 (11th Cir. 1992)

holding that the exhaustion requirement in § 2241 is jurisdictional, but relying on a case addressing the exhaustion requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

Summary of this case from Lueth v. Beach

holding that prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Martin v. Zenk

holding that prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petition because "[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional"

Summary of this case from Skinner v. Wiley

holding that "exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional" in context where an administrative agency — the Bureau of Prisons — is responsible for computation of sentences

Summary of this case from Tennessee Valley Authority v. U.S.E.P.A

holding that the BOP's alleged failure to release an inmate on his presumptive release date did not excuse the prisoner's failure to exhaust

Summary of this case from Gentry v. Hurwitz

holding that a prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petition because "exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional"

Summary of this case from McIntyre v. U.S.

holding that the BOP's alleged failure to release an inmate on his presumptive release date did not excuse the prisoner's failure to exhaust

Summary of this case from Fulford v. Fisher

holding that because exhaustion is jurisdictional, a prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Rance v. Barron

affirming district court's dismissal of federal prisoner's unexhausted § 2241 petition; and rejecting petitioner's argument that exhaustion was unnecessary "because his presumptive release date had passed"

Summary of this case from Darden v. Harmon

affirming district court's dismissal of federal prisoner's unexhausted § 2241 petition because "[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional," and rejecting petitioner's argument that exhaustion was unnecessary "because his presumptive release date had passed"

Summary of this case from Gilliam v. Purdue

addressing denial of a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Williams

addressing denial of a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from United States v. Sanchez-Colin

addressing denial of a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Nettles

addressing denial of a § 2241 petition

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Robinson
Case details for

Gonzalez v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:IVAN GONZALEZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Apr 27, 1992

Citations

959 F.2d 211 (11th Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

Ross v. Wells

The Bureau of Prisons has established regulations that set forth the procedures that a prisoner must follow…

Krist v. Eichenlaub

For purposes of § 2241 relief, "exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional." Gonzalez v. United…