Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

845 F.2d 951

Docket No. 87-7116

United States v. Mitchell

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1988-05-23

<p>Non-Argument Calendar.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(b) CREDIT FOR PRIOR CUSTODY. —A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences— (1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or (2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; that has not been credited against another sentence.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including United States v. Woods, United States v. Lucas

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3585

Relies on United States v. Mathis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1988-05-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2015

10 federal appellate ·

801988199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Non-Argument Calendar.

¶2Theodore Roosevelt Mitchell, pro se.

¶3J.B. Sessions, III, U.S. Atty., Gloria A. Bedwell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6The only issue on this appeal is whether a federal district court has jurisdiction over *952a federal prisoner’s petition for jail time credit when the prisoner has not exhausted his administrative remedies with the Attorney General. Because binding precedent of this court holds that the prisoner must exhaust those remedies, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Thus, we remand the case with instructions that the district court vacate its order denying Mitchell’s petition and enter an order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

¶7Mississippi state authorities arrested Mitchell on state charges on December 6, 1984. Federal authorities in Alabama also wanted Mitchell, and they filed a federal detainer with the Mississippi authorities on March 20, 1985. The federal authorities subsequently took custody of Mitchell and brought him to Alabama to stand trial on the federal charges. Mitchell was convicted of the federal charges on August 22, 1985, and sentenced to fifteen years on September 25, 1985. On September 27, 1985, the federal authorities returned Mitchell to state custody in Mississippi. On November 7, 1985, the Mississippi state court sentenced Mitchell to seven years to run concurrently with the federal sentence.

¶8On December 8,1986, Mitchell filed a pro se motion seeking credit for his jail time.1 The district court summarily denied this motion on January 15, 1987. Mitchell now appeals this decision.

¶9Our decision in this case is controlled by United States v. Mathis, 689 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir.1982). In Mathis, this court held that a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a federal prisoner’s petition for jail time credit until the prisoner has exhausted his administrative remedies with the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 3568.2 Mitchell has made no showing that he has exhausted these remedies.

¶10We are aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3568 was repealed effective November 1, 1987.3 On that date, the new 18 U.S.C. § 3585 replaced 18 U.S.C. § 3568.4 Unfortunately, although the new provision still provides for credit for jail time, it does not specify who shall give such credit. However, that problem need not concern us here. On December 7, 1987, the Sentencing Act of 1987 was enacted.5 Section 2(a) of that Act amended the effective date section of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (§ 235(a)(1)) to make it clear that the new 18 U.S.C. § 3585 applies only to crimes *953committed after November 1, 1987.6 Because Mitchell’s crimes occurred in 1983 and 1984, we hold that the old 18 U.S.C. § 3568 is still applicable to his case. Therefore, we continue to follow our holding in Mathis that the district could does not have jurisdiction to entertain Mitchell’s petition until he has exhausted his administrative remedies.

¶11The case is REMANDED for the district court to vacate its order denying appellant’s petition and to enter an order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

/845/f2d/951 · .json · Public domain