United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
Court recently revoked defendant David Barnes's
supervised release and sentenced him to imprisonment for a
term of five months. ECF No. 122. This matter is before the
Court on Barnes's “motion for restorative
reconsideration hearing, ” in which he essentially
argues that the Court erred in imposing the revocation
sentence. Barnes also seems to take issue with the manner in
which the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has
calculated the credit he is to receive for his pre-revocation
sentence is imposed, a district court cannot modify that
sentence unless such a modification is specifically
authorized by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c);
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010);
United States v. Allmon, 702 F.3d 1034, 1036-37 (8th
Cir. 2012). Barnes cites no authority under which the Court
would have jurisdiction to reconsider his revocation
sentence. See United States v. Combe, 508 F.
App'x 699, 702 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining that, under
§ 3582 and Dillon, district courts generally
lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment imposed on
revocation of supervised release). His motion for
reconsideration is therefore denied.
Barnes's complaint regarding credit for prior custody,
requests for such credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) must
be directed in the first instance to the BOP, not to a court.
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35
(1992); United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699
(8th Cir. 2004). After the prisoner has exhausted his
administrative remedies, he may challenge an adverse decision
by the BOP under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Wilson,
503 U.S. at 335; Pardue, 363 F.3d at 699. If Barnes
wishes to challenge the BOP's credit calculation, he must
first exhaust his administrative remedies and then, if he is
unsuccessful in obtaining relief, file a separate civil
action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Defendant David Lee Barnes's motion for restorative
consideration hearing [ECF No. 123] is DENIED.
Defendant's in forma pauperis application [ECF
No. 124] is DENIED AS MOOT.
the extent a certificate of appealability is necessary to
appeal this order, no ...