United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division
B. Jones, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the undersigned to address Defendant John
F. Curran, Ill's ("Defendant") pro se
Motion for Sentence Credit [DE-11], filed on January 12,
2017. The Government responded in opposition to
Defendant's motion [DE-12], and Defendant filed a reply
[DE-13]. Accordingly, the pending motion is ripe for
adjudication. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant's motion is denied.
14, 2013, Defendant pleaded guilty in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland (the
"District of Maryland") to one count of securities
fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff,
and was sentenced on August 15, 2013 to 37 months'
imprisonment, followed by three years' supervised
release. United States v. Curran, No. 1:11
-CR-687-RDB, [DE-107, -128] (D. Md.). On August 25, 2016, the
District of Maryland issued an arrest warrant for Defendant
for an alleged violation of supervised release, and Defendant
was apprehended on September 7, 2016 in the Eastern District
of North Carolina. Id. [DE-208].
court held an Initial Appearance pursuant to Rule 5(c)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on September 8, 2016,
and on the same date appointed counsel for Defendant and
temporarily detained Defendant in advance of further
proceedings. [DE-2, -4, -5]. On September 15, 2016, this
court held Preliminary and Detention Hearings, finding
probable cause that Defendant had violated the conditions of
his supervised release. [DE-6, -9]. This court also denied
the Government's motion for detention and entered an
order setting conditions of release, placing Defendant on
home incarceration at the residence of his third-party
custodian located within Maryland. [DE-7].
November 4, 2016, the District of Maryland found that
Defendant was in violation of his conditions of supervised
release, revoked Defendant's supervised release, and
sentenced Defendant to an additional 24 months'
imprisonment. United States v. Current, No.
1:11-CR-687-RDB, [DE-217] (D. Md.). The sentencing judge
recommended to the Bureau of Prisons that Defendant receive
credit for time served while in custody in North Carolina
between September 7, 2016 and September 19, 2016, and in
Maryland between November 3, 2016 and November 4, 2016.
seeks an order directing the Federal Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") to credit his period of home incarceration
imposed by this court from September 16, 2016 until November
2, 2016 towards his 24 months' sentence for violation of
supervised release imposed by the District of Maryland.
Def.'s Mot. [DE-11]; Def.'s Reply [DE-13]. In
response, the Government argues that the District of
Maryland, and not this court, has jurisdiction over
Defendant's violation of supervised release proceedings
and in any event, Defendant's motion is baseless where
the Attorney General, through the BOP, has authority to award
time-served credit and Defendant's period of home
incarceration was not official detention for which he may
receive such credit. Gov't Resp. [DE-12].
Defendant was originally sentenced by the District of
Maryland, and that sentence included a term of supervised
release. United States v. Curran, No.
1:11-CR-687-RDB, [DE-128] (D. Md.). The sentencing court
retains jurisdiction over a defendant serving a term of
supervised release, unless the court expressly transfers
jurisdiction to another district court. See 18
U.S.C. § 3605 ("A court, after imposing a sentence,
may transfer jurisdiction over a probationer or person on
supervised release to the district court for any other
district to which the person is required to proceed as a
condition of his probation or release, or is permitted to
proceed, with the concurrence of such court. A later transfer
of jurisdiction may be made in the same manner."). No
such transfer took place in the instant case. While Defendant
was arrested in the Eastern District of North Carolina, his
revocation proceedings were ultimately held in the District
of Maryland and his sentence for violation of supervised
release was imposed by that court. This court merely held
preliminary proceedings pursuant to Rule 5(c)(3) and
"imposed conditions on Defendant's release pending
his revocation hearing before the District of Maryland."
[DE-9] at 2; see Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(c)(3)
(discussing the procedures for holding preliminary
proceedings when the initial appearance occurs in another
district and the procedure for transferring the defendant to
the district where the offense was allegedly committed). To
the extent Defendant argues that the proceedings in this
district constituted a transfer of jurisdiction to this
district, his argument is without merit.
as this court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant's
violation of supervised release proceedings, Defendant's
motion for sentence credit must be denied. Having held that
it lacks jurisdiction, the court will not consider the
Government's additional arguments in support of denying
reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Sentence