Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Henderson filed his petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania. His petition was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana after Henderson was transferred to a prison in that district.
See Henderson v. Keffer, W.D. La. Civil Action No. 09-cv-00857.
2
execution of his sentence, claiming that he should receive credit against his federal
sentence for time spent in the custody of the State of North Carolina. Henderson further
asserted that he believed that his state and federal sentences would run concurrently, that
counsel was ineffective for improperly advising him, and that his guilty plea was
unknowing.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judges report and recommendation to
deny the petition on the merits. Henderson v. Keffer, 2009 WL 3294844 (W.D. La. Oct.
13, 2009) (unpublished decision). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Henderson was
not entitled to any credit against his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3585(b) because
all of his time served before his release from state custody on May 29, 2005, was credited
against his state sentence. The Magistrate Judge rejected Hendersons reliance on his
state judgment, explaining that it was not binding on the Federal Bureau of Prisons.2 The
Magistrate Judge also explained that Henderson must seek relief through a habeas petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 to the extent he seeks to challenge his state conviction or
through a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 to the extent he seeks
to challenge his federal conviction.
The Magistrate Judge also found no abuse of discretion in the Bureau of Prisons
decision to deny Hendersons request to designate the state prison as the place of his
federal confinement pursuant to Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1990),
which held that the Bureau of Prisons has authority to so designate where a federal
sentence was imposed before a state sentence and the state judge intended the sentences
to be served concurrently. The Bureau of Prisons denied Hendersons request based upon
his prison disciplinary record.
3
not a substitute for an appeal. Under Queen, the District Court properly dismissed
Hendersons 2241 petition pursuant to 2244(a). See also Valona v. United States, 138
F.3d 693, 695 (7th Cir. 1998) (noting 2244(a) bars successive petitions under 2241
directed to the same issue concerning execution of a sentence); Chambers v. United
States, 106 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir. 1997) (dismissing pursuant to 2244(a) a jail-credit
claim brought in an earlier 2241 petition and decided on the merits).3
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.4