Opinion
Criminal Action No. 00-303, Section "R"
June 13, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is petitioner's motion for credit against his sentence for time on bond. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
Darrin R. Jarreau, Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846, on November 27, 2000. On June 20, 2001, the Court sentenced petitioner to 87 months imprisonment and it ordered him to self-surrender to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) by July 23, 2001. The BOP designated petitioner to the Federal Corrections Institute in Yazoo City, Mississippi, where he is presently incarcerated. Petitioner asks the Court to give him credit against his sentence for time spent on bond.
II. Discussion
The Court will construe petitioner's motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because petitioner challenges the execution of his sentence. See United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992) (challenge to execution of petitioner's sentence should be filed as a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241) (citing United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 77-78 (5th Cir. 1990)); United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 835 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Sanchez-Quintana v. Davis, 2001 WL 1397316, *1 (E.D. La. 2001). In order to entertain jurisdiction over a section 2241 habeas petition, the federal district court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner or his custodian when the petition is filed. Gabor, 905 F.2d at 78 (citing Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526, 527 (5th Cir. 1978)); McClure v. Hopper, 577 F.2d 938, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1077, 99 S.Ct. 854 (1979). Accordingly, a petitioner must file his habeas petition in the federal district in which he is physically present. Id. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner filed this petition from the federal penitentiary in Yazoo City, Mississippi, which is in the Southern District of Mississippi. Therefore, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to afford petitioner the relief he seeks. Additionally, the petition is not properly before this Court because Jarreau has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies as required under section 3585(b). See United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992) ("a necessary condition to obtaining § 3585(b) credit is. that the offender must first exhaust his administrative remedies before the Bureau of Prisons") (citing United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 1355 (1992)).
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court observes that there is no merit to Jarreau's petition. See Cleto, 956 F.2d at 84; Garcia-Gutierrez, 835 F.2d at 586. Petitioner mistakenly cites 18 U.S.C. § 3568(b) as his grounds for relief. Section 3568 has been repealed and replaced with 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which the Fifth Circuit has held does not afford petitioner credit for time on bail. See United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992) (a person is not entitled to credit for the time he is on bail); Pinedo v. United States, 955 F.2d 12, 13-14 (5th Cir. 1992); Cleto, 956 F.2d at 84-85; United States v. Insley, 927 F.2d 185, 186-87 (5th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Mares, 868 F.2d 151, 152 (5th Cir. 1989) (rejecting petitioner's request for credit for time free on bond under section 3568). Accordingly, the Court finds that the petition is without merit. See United States v. Martin, 2002 WL 662923, at *1 (E.D. La. 2002)
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES petitioner's motion.