United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Jane Magnus-Stinson, United States District Court Chief Judge
petition for writ of habeas corpus of Jorge Cruz, a federal
inmate, challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
(“BOP”) computation of his good time credit
(“GTC”) is denied and this action is dismissed
was formerly confined in this District and challenges the
BOP's computation of his GTC. Cruz alleges that he has
not received credit toward his federal sentence from October
3, 1990 through November 15, 1990 and that his sentence has
not been properly adjusted for GTC earned on the portion of
his sentence he has actually served. These contentions,
however, are flawed. The pleadings and the expanded record
show the following pertinent facts:
October 2, 1990, Cruz was sentenced in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina in No.
89-210 to an aggregate term of 360-months imprisonment. This
sentence was subsequently reduced to 292 months. The BOP
calculated Cruz's sentence to begin on October 3, 1990.
Cruz has been given prior custody credit from July 26, 1989
through October 2, 1990. This corresponded to the 434 days
Cruz was in custody from the date of his arrest until the
date sentence was imposed.
5, 1995, Cruz was sentenced in No. CR 2:93-0267 to an
aggregate term of 96-months of imprisonment, to be served
consecutively to his sentence in No. 89-210.
on the foregoing, Cruz is now serving the revised aggregate
term of 388 months. The BOP considers this sentence to have
commenced on October 3, 1990. See 18 U.S.C. §
3585(a) (providing that a federal sentence commences
“on the date when the defendant is received in custody
awaiting transportation to . . . the official detention
facility at which the sentence is to be served.”). As
previously noted, Cruz has been given prior custody credit
from July 26, 1989 through October 2, 1990.
states that he was arrested on July 26, 1989, but that he was
not in custody “until his conviction, sentence, and
arrival in BOP on November 15, 1990.” It is true that
Cruz was not awarded prior custody credit for the period of
time after October 2, 1990, but it is also true that he
received service credit from that date forward-this being
first credit toward service of the sentence in No. 89-210 and
subsequently toward service of the aggregated sentence after
the imposition of sentence in No. CR 2:93-0267.
leaves for resolution whether Cruz's GTC has been
properly calculated and whether adjustments to that total
have been accurately made.
interprets 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) to award inmates 54
days of GTC for each year the inmate serves in prison and to
prorate the amount of GTC for the last partial year.
See 28 C.F.R. § 523.20. The BOP's formula
for calculating GTC is set forth in BOP Program Statement
5880.28 of the Sentence Computation Manual. Program Statement
5884.02 declares an inmate will receive 54 days of credit for
each year served (pro-rated when the time served by the
inmate for the sentence during the year is less than a full
year). The BOP's method of calculating GTC was upheld in
Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010). Program
Statement 5270.09 (August 1, 2011) allows the BOP to impose
sanctions on inmates who commit prohibited acts, these being
(1) sanctions of 27 days of forfeited GTC on February 12,
2002, (2) sanctions of 14 days of forfeited GTC on June 3,
2004, and (3) sanctions of 40 days of forfeited GTC on March
computation of GTC is this: Commencing July 26, 1989 and for
the ensuing 28 annual anniversaries of that date (through
July 26, 2017), Cruz could have been expected to earn 1512
days of GTC. For the period from July 26, 2017 through
December 6, 2017, Cruz can be expected to earn 19 days of
GTC. These total 1, 531 days of GTC. From this total must be
subtracted the 81 days of GTC forfeited as the result of
misconduct. The balance of projected GTC, extending through
Cruz's Statutory Release Date of December 6, 2017, is
1450 days. This date is projected rather than actual because
it is conceivable that Cruz will once again suffer the loss
of GTC through the violation of prison rules and Program
considering an inmate's application for habeas relief,
the Court must determine whether the petitioner is “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);
Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). For the
reasons explained above, Cruz has failed to meet his burden
of showing such infirmity and his petition for writ of habeas
corpus is therefore denied.
consistent with this ...